Metaphysical & Epistemological Discussion, Ongoing?

SuperSpock22 hours ago (edited)22:44 I’m unclear as to what truth he’s speaking of. I agree that truth as a concept is in the realm of thought. My lack of clarity about his statement stems from the feeling that I’m unsure if he is saying that this other truth ought to be pursued. If so, then it’s no different than science.

SuperSpock22 hours ago23:28 There are no philosophical or theological truths. All the problems of life, i.e. philosophical or existential issues are just inconsistencies arisen out of the particular use of language (impossible to correct). And surprisingly, science falls into the category of specific language use as well. Thus, the philosophical and the scientific originate from the same source which is language, which is thought and will ever be incomplete.

SuperSpock21 hours ago27:37 Freedom cannot be achieved through a process of any kind. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems make a compelling case.

SuperSpock18 hours ago (edited)For anyone confused by my points, please refer to my blog post if interested enough. I hope that is satisfactory because I fleshed it all out to explain my stance on things.

H H13 hours ago (edited)I think you misunderstand, your claims exemplify the kind of truths he describes. Aren’t you sure that your quasi-Wittgensteinian account obtains with regards to the concepts you identify (i.e. do you not think that philosophical/scientific problems are unresolvable)? If so, you meaningfully affirm his conception of truth as something internal and sui generis to the individual. As to your claim about the impossibility of freedom, I refute it thus. raises arm

SuperSpock13 hours ago@H H What are these separations if not dualistic? I am referring to what’s internal and what’s external. Do you think the first cause if there is such a thing is a duality? Isn’t that contradictory in terms? Here, I am speaking of the first cause only because we’re using language to communicate. That is the purpose of language which is to go back to the source of all thought. So these words you are using to describe your point of view aren’t really truth-oriented and neither are mine. What is truth? What is that concept, if not in general then at least to you? We need an absolutely accurate representation of the concept and if that can’t be attained then there is no other truth to consider whether that’s internal or external.

SuperSpock12 hours ago (edited)@H H I didn’t quite understand this bit “Aren’t you sure that your quasi-Wittgensteinian account obtains with regards to the concepts you identify (i.e. do you not think that philosophical/scientific problems are unresolvable)?” Obtains what? Or are you referring to the act of obtaining? EDIT: Actually I think there is no problem. It just arises out of language. So, rather than solving I would say I dissolve/negate.

SuperSpock12 hours ago@H H I didn’t say freedom is impossible, did I? If I did then point out that statement to me because I’d like to know. I think freedom is unlikely though.

SuperSpock12 hours ago@H H I’m also not well versed in academic philosophy, so keep that in mind if you decide to refer to a certain text or concept. But, in the interest of pursuing this discussion I’d like to rectify that. Although, I’d much prefer a quick summary instead. I don’t need much to master a concept. Just a precise description would do. And I don’t mean that you have to give it. Just that I intend to do it myself wherever necessary.

H H5 hours agoSuperSpock My first query is what language game is your claim that ‘all claims are embedded in language games’ embedded in?

Highlighted replyH H5 hours agoSuperSpock Obtains is analytical philosophy term that is used to discuss things corresponding to truth, search it up. Linguistic confusions are the worst as I’m sure you know.

H H5 hours agoSuperSpock When you say freedom cannot be ‘achieved’ though a process, what do you mean? Do you mean it can’t emerge from a process?

H H5 hours ago (edited)SuperSpock I think some of the confusion here is that you ascribe Jaspers a very specific notion of truth which he may not have. His conception. of ‘private truths’ of philosophy/theology can be made consistent with what you believe and is readily comprehensible to most people.

SuperSpock2 hours ago@H H I don’t remember saying anything about language games. I’m not carrying the torch for Wittgenstein. Address me on my own terms, please. I deliberately avoided using that analogy.

SuperSpock2 hours ago (edited)@H H I mean that what you implied by the word “emergence” is not a process because the word “process” implies fragmentation. “Emergence” is also not a word sufficient to describe anything related to consciousness. Emergence deals with the properties arising in an entity that is conscious. I don’t think consciousness has anything to do with properties. Mind may emerge and have properties but not consciousness.

SuperSpock2 hours ago (edited)@H H I didn’t ascribe my definition of truth to Jaspers. I compared mine with his instead and corrected his use of the term. If truth exists then it makes sense that it would be primordial to existence. So, something like the first cause would fit the definition perfectly. I think it’s perfectly comprehensible but it does require a bit of pondering. I don’t change my usage of terms unless I find it out to be invalid or inefficient in describing reality. But, I do use a few placeholder terms like “truth” or “source”. I call them placeholders because they are precisely that. I landed on those terms by default because I couldn’t find a better term. Maybe reading Heidegger would help. I do have a lot of reading to do. EDIT: These are not private truths for me. I think these truths are universal. I’m just opposed to calling them truths but do so anyway for the sake of a discussion because although I may be stuck with using it as a placeholder term, you might have something to add to the exchange like a better word to use. So, I used the word with the conviction that I am right about this. So, you can hold me accountable for it, surely.

SuperSpock1 hour ago (edited)I used “achieved” in colloquial terms because that was sufficient as an explanation. But, to delve further to put it into a descriptive format, I’d use the word “learn”. Freedom cannot be learned. Is that a good description? I’m willing to delve deeper into what learning means but that would require understanding neuroscience and linguistics in it’s current form of research. I have plans to devote myself to studying the subjects but for the sake of this discussion I’ll keep it brief. Unless, of course you are an expert in those fields or have dabbled a bit into those topics yourself. In that case, I’m ill-equipped to answer your questions but I’ll try my absolute best because I do have the resources to educate myself and am in the act of doing so.

EDIT: I don’t imply that just because freedom cannot be learned, we’re free or not free. For me freedom implies being free from the influence of the entirety of culture. Only then is a person truly an individual. This entails dissolving of contents from one’s consciousness or rather the negating/emptying of a mind which otherwise exists.

1 hour ago@H H I’m very much enjoying this discussion. I haven’t had a proper one in a long while. Please, continue if you wish to. I’m enthusiastic.

SuperSpock58 minutes ago@H H I would also like to point out that what Karl said is perfectly sensible and usable as a template for further developments in philosophy and the sciences. I’m also not opposed to the usage of terms such as personal truths. But, my intention is to attain pure description which may very well be a nigh impossible task. I just intend to do it anyway. This is where I think Karl lacks. A pure description of the states of affairs, so to speak. I’m of a singular purpose to do this as of now. There may come time when I’m ready for other ideas or pursuits but right now I wanna describe thoroughly. So, expect me to make what I think are corrections in many a video that I might end up disagreeing with. And I’ll always welcome any discussion of any sort from you or anyone else as long as it’s done cordially and the tone is free of malice.

I hope this clarifies what my intentions are.

H H1 day ago SuperSpock I see, I will then focus explicitly on what you advance independently of jaspers. Disregard the stuff about language games, how can you advance a claim that all claims are mired by confusions of language and then state that ‘truth is impossible because of confusions of language’. Is your claim not susceptible to same confusions?

H H1 day ago Something of note is that I don’t believe neuroscience has anything substantive to contribute to questions of freedom or consciousness.

SuperSpock1 day ago@H H To your statements about confusions I’d say like Wittgenstein, I am uncertain of anything. That’s the default position of an observer. I don’t claim anything. All I’m doing is showing the uselessness of thought in solving “The Problem”. It can only be dissolved. Also, can you take a different approach than asking me 20 questions? I need to know what your stance is on everything.

SuperSpock1 day ago@H H OK. I don’t agree on your bit about neuroscience not being capable of answering questions regarding consciousness. You see, you still have a logical framework of thought. So, you naturally ricochet between options. That’s illusory.

SuperSpock1 day ago@H H Btw why would you avoid talking about Jaspers? Why are you setting rules beforehand? Be forthcoming with information instead. Otherwise there is no discussion to be had. I’m a free thinker. Aren’t you?

SuperSpock1 day ago@H H I would like to avoid psychoanalysis. Please, be reasonable in that regard. Stick to the discussion instead of character study. If you’re gonna psychoanalyze then the discussion ends there. If you’re not interested then that’s a separate issue. I’m not saying you’re doing this. So, what do you want to talk about? What’s your expertise? I’ll try to match your rhythm.

SuperSpock1 day ago@H H I’m fine with talking about Jaspers or even delving deep into linguistics if that is what you want. You sure seem confident about linguistics. Maybe you know something. Care to share?

SuperSpock1 day ago@H H Why do you think neuroscience has nothing to do with questions regarding consciousness?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s