Meta Philosophy question-do you look for strong practice, adherence to logic, discipline, or things that resonate or enlighten in philo?
- PLv 72 months agoFavourite answer
Given the alternatives you offer, as a totally subjective and intuitive INFJ it has to be that which resonates and enlightens. These require an open and enlightened mind. This doesn't preclude critical thinking !
Adherence to logic restricts to tracks which never meet until infinity is achieved.
Discipline has it's place (along with acceptance and obedience) but raises the question of who sets the rules, who enforces, and who adjudicates.
- Anonymous2 months ago
What we look for should be of no consequence to you. Worry about what YOU value instead. A main goal of philosophy is learning to think and decide for yourself. Also, what you've asked is a mere and unenlightened survey of opinion. To make it a philosophically relevant question worthy of our time and your time then you ought to at least ask why.
- 2 months ago
I’m sure that is meant as a multiple choice question, but it looks like a yes or a no.
I prefer things that enlighten or resonate with me because I observe people’s “sense-of life”. (Please look that up if you don’t know the exact phrase.)
I also try to see the epistemology in people’s words. This causes me to get into discussions or even arguments with people about the meaning of the word they just used in a sentence they threw at me!
- j153eLv 72 months ago
Logic: no false dichotomies...---> enlightenment.
p.s. To explicate:
Logic begins with a point-gesture, which is the positing of a cartesian matrix (space-time grid).
This, in the Self-aware, indicates I Am as ontological precursor ("pointer"). (In the non-Self-aware, "existence precedes logic.")
Thus, enlightenment at the level of the Cartesian logician (i.e., some awareness of soul-field as receiving/imaging/thinking God's thoughts after Him, e.g. Plato, Descartes, Einstein) as "I am, therefore I posit/think/imagine, etc."
Sri Ramana Maharshi deals with this at the level of "Who am i?" ("egoji," as Sri Ramana Maharshi's colleague Sunyata described it), and "Who am I?", and occasionally "Who Am I?", which then is as Sunyata realized: "I Am *that* I Am"--"Om Tat Sat Om"--"One Mind Soul."
Thus logic--->Logic qua Being preceding logic--->Enlightenment (for the Sri Ramana Maharshi-Sunyata tradition). Another way of exploring the consequences of exponentation in any cartesian logicism is that such "complexity" necessitates the Godelian Incompleteness Theorems, per which "existential" logic without awareness of Being ("Enlightenment") is necessarily an incomplete axiomization (qua positivist reductionism). Such reductionism is, as noted above, the consequence of the objectification of awareness such that the initial condition presumes the positing of a point gesture by the logician--who has solipsistically left herself and her origin out of the process--an example of "Enlightenment man" placing himself at the center of activity/creation, and then reductively, as a logical positivist, deeming it "objectivity."
"Who Am I? The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi;"
"Sunyata: The Life & Sayings of a Rare-born Mystic."
Three quotes: one by Gautama Buddha, one by Schopenhauer, and one by Max Planck (leaving it to the reader to correlate the quote with the speaker, if that is important :-)
"All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else."
"The fate of one individual invariably fits the fate of the other and each is the hero of his own drama while simultaneously figuring in a drama foreign to him--this is something that surpasses our powers of comprehension, and can only be conceived as possible by virtue of the most wonderful pre-established harmony."
"The assumption of an absolute determinism is the essential foundation of every scientific inquiry."