Faustian Filosofy

[Dan~]

We experience reality through a combination of senses.

Language is a form of information.
Information can be fabricated, created, destroyed.

Knowledge comes from experiences, and language.

Philosophers utilize knowledge and language more than the lay person.
Some people greatly favor language.

Language is symbols associated with meanings.

Language exists in part as induction.

Without experiences, language is incomplete.

An experienced person grasps words differently than a newb.

Philosophical error is a mistake in attaching a meaning to a word.

That dog is purple, no it's not.
Proper word induction to dog color is brown or white or grey etc. not purple.
This doesn't mean a purple dog is impossible,
but without a hair stylist, it is a non existent possibility.

Good atheism is where you don't over step your philosophical boundries
by making claims about gods that are invisible.
This doesn't mean ya all up and hate christians, for example.
It just descends from agnosticism.
"I can't know right now, therefor I don't believe right now."

If a god appeared to faust and asked him to kill a baby,
what would he do?
Well, if it is a god, it doesn't need a dead baby.
It's like a fat man demanding more food, even though he already has too much.
Also, dead babies are less responsive than live babies.
So, if god doesn't make sense, morally,
then god shouldn't be followed, even if he exists somewhere hidden in a pocket of nebula.

Christians believe that might is right.
That is why they worship the creator of their flood,
which supposedly killed almost everyone and everything.

More to come, later.

[Ecmandu]

I always say that people do for god is what they’d want to be done to them if they were god:

Bowing, kneeling, sacrificing, praying, paying alms, going to a temple (or church or synagogue), spreading the word of how great god is! in their honor...

People are sick in the head!

And hypocrites! God, as they define god, needs NOTHING from us!

[Dan~]

I always say that people do for god is what they’d want to be done to them if they were god:

Bowing, kneeling, sacrificing, praying, paying alms, going to a temple (or church or synagogue), spreading the word of how great god is! in their honor...

People are sick in the head!

And hypocrites! God, as they define god, needs NOTHING from us!

When religion doesn't make sense, it becomes immoral.

[Dan~]

Code: Select all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism

There is knowledge, but how we interact with that knowledge, is bound to a perspective.
It's like being skillful with a pen or a pencil.
Except, in good philosophy, it is skillful use of perspective.

Skill is different than trueness, but skillfulness is shrewd.

The job of a good philosopher is to do well with thoughts and ideas.
This requires a special approach.
The approach is a form of perspective.

[Dan~]

Now the next point, what is the best possible experience?
What is the best possible perspective.
Not the best in the whole world,
but the best you are personally capable of?

It's similar to pragmatism, but pragmatism is like, most convenient.
Best-possible, is a measurement of value.
Most-right, is a measurement of value, too, but the meaning is kinda different.
Most-true, misses the mark.
Why bother with something because it is true, rather than because it is useful?
So many things are already true.

[Dan~]

Why did faust say that minimalism is good?

Belief about an ultimate God figure, is maximal.
It's the biggest idea around.

If we are poor, intellectually, then we shouldn't spend as much.

Conserving thought.

That is what minimalism can be about.

[Dan~]

What is practical logic?
Being logical, in a way that suits each situation.
Similar to pragmatism.
Mental progression and mental subsistence.
The human mind has needs.
If you know what those are, it is important knowledge to know that.

[Fixed Cross]

Wits must he have | who wanders wide.

[Ecmandu]

Wits must he have | who wanders wide.

The Jews talk about the “narrow path”. The wide path is not only the real deal, it’s the hardest path to take!

[Dan~]

Philosophical confusion:

Use someone else's definitions of terms.

A reasonable mind can invent new words any time and give them a meaning.

Each unique individual has their own personalized meanings for words.

It is impossible to communicate with someone unless some common ground exists.

Personal experience is entirely different than words.
Learning new words does nothing.
Nothing at all.
The meaning and insight of personal experiences,
is real knowledge.
Words draw meanings from the human individual database.

Communication draws from mutual understanding.
Imagination is like a simulation.
You can learn from it.
But it is a facility of the mind.

More on this later.

[Dan~]

Philosophical confusion: part2:

Confusion results in people taking words, and not treating them for what they are.
They are only words.
But words lead the mind to other words.
We spend hours for years, listening to words, and expressing words.
But they are simply a set of names.
Names are symbolic, not literal.
Names are an essence of abstraction.

Words are meant to be outgrown.
Words are meant to be customized.
The rest of consciousness is important too.
You can't just focus on only one aspect of the psyche.

We are inside our consciousness.
We are not outside in the world doing things.
Nature is automatic.

[Dan~]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqIgQC0Gx4Y

The "Experience Machine" thought experiment about hedonism.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Where’s the connection from language to the God talk?

[Dan~]

My own philosophy:

Everything is part of reality.
Every last speck of dust is a part of reality.
All ideas and morals are real things.

One can't expect to be literal all the time.
Abstractions of other abstractions happens.
A symbol representing another, different symbol.

Philosophical error happens when people put too much faith into thoughts.

Wrapped up in a world of abstractions,
overwhelmed with thought,
someone that does not meditate.

Take a pill.
Take your time.
Most things in the human world of thought are possible.
Just avoid the fallacies.

[omar]

Hello Dan

We experience reality through a combination of senses.
Language is a form of information.
Information can be fabricated, created, destroyed.
Knowledge comes from experiences, and language.

I don't think that language is a form of information but rather how we learn to organize information for easy exchange. Baby is crying. Obviously she's reacting to nerve information but she cannot relate that information effectively. We as parents have to guess what that information is. The crying itself is information and thus a form of basic language (since no one is indifferent to it) but not very specific. As the child grows however we begin to take advantage of developmental dispositions that allows suggestions to be advanced as to the origin, or nature of what formerly simply made her cry. Now we give them language- a way to organize and make public what before remained a private experience. Still, the process itself is vulnerable to error, and so we might think that we know what someone is feeling because we understand the words that were used to describe their internal state.

Language is symbols associated with meanings.
Language exists in part as induction.
Without experiences, language is incomplete.

Not necessarily true. The association is based on an interpretation. When we say to the child "Does your belly hurt?" we add to the symbols a sad face and we point to our torso. None of that is the actual meaning of "belly" or "hurt" because there are other interpretations that could be given to these bare symbols. It is in the habit, in the utility that we acquire the reinforcement that X symbol means Y. I agree that this process is about association, but I think that we do not associate to a meaning but to a performance. Language deals with a lot of symbols of which we will never have an experience. We can empathize with babies, kids because we feel that we've been there and as humans, nothing human is wholly alien to us. But we don't stop at interpreting baby cries but also the actions and sounds of animals, for example. Language can describe my experience of my dog even if I have no experience of being a dog.

Good atheism is where you don't over step your philosophical boundries
by making claims about gods that are invisible.
This doesn't mean ya all up and hate christians, for example.
It just descends from agnosticism.
"I can't know right now, therefor I don't believe right now."

Well, my objection to agnosticism is the impossibility of knowing itself, now or in the future. The finite knows nothing and cannot know anything, ever, of the Infinite. We can assume, through induction, or deduction, doesn't matter as it remains a leap of faith that what we have assumed, however educated, is the infinite case. The way that I would word your statement is "I can't know right now, therefore I only believe".

If a god appeared to faust and asked him to kill a baby,
what would he do?
Well, if it is a god, it doesn't need a dead baby.
It's like a fat man demanding more food, even though he already has too much.
Also, dead babies are less responsive than live babies.
So, if god doesn't make sense, morally,
then god shouldn't be followed, even if he exists somewhere hidden in a pocket of nebula.

I think that it would be a transaction. The Biblical gods were/are transactional. First they sacrificed babies, then bulls or sheep or rams, then the son of man. There is a rationality to sacrificing, exchanging what is most precious to you for favor. Hell we still do it. And god was not moral in these transactions. Morality itself is another transaction--what we do is still a means and not an end in itself.
Should Abraham have believed in such a moral monster? Should for that matter Job, or even Jesus? Who knows, but what would they have had left without that moral monster? That is essentially God's answer to Job.

[Dan~]

Hello Dan
I don't think that language is a form of information but rather how we learn to organize information for easy exchange.

That is true, but i also meant that.
During the use of knowledge, words, symbols and information come up constantly.

Well, my objection to agnosticism is the impossibility of knowing itself, now or in the future.

You've made a mistake,
because it is impossible to know if knowing is impossible to know.
Hahaha.

Also it is not that i don't want to make sense.
But you can't spoil my meanings here either.
Interpretation.

[obsrvr524]

Well, my objection to agnosticism is the impossibility of knowing itself, now or in the future.

You've made a mistake,
because it is impossible to know if knowing is impossible to know.
Hahaha.

That's a great point to make.
And the converse is true - it could be potentially known that knowing is possible.

[Fixed Cross]

I once set out to make a film about Faustian philosophy, which I do think is an actual school of sorts. I learned some things from him though mostly through his incredibly noble attitude.
This thingie is only a prelude, but it does express a bit of his typical thinking style. Mostly though it expresses my love of America - a country of which he surely is some kind of spiritual royalty.

[omar]

Hello Dan

You've made a mistake,
because it is impossible to know if knowing is impossible to know.
Hahaha.

No It's not. I know, for example, that it is impossible for the eye to see itself (and a reflection in a mirror is not the eye itself but it's backward appearance). The finite does not, per the definition itself, contain the infinite, again as defined.

Now, I don't want to spoil your exposition of your interpretation.I'm just adding to your awareness the objections before your intentions which might ignore as you go around, or try to overcome.