If we could enter such a state of being we'd probably have a totally different idea of what logic even means.

Hopefully Einstein found his answers. He certainly deserved to know after all the effort he put into trying to figure it out in this life.

No way to prove it of course, but I am not convinced that regardless of how strange things seem that they aren't still actually causal ...

Michael's not alone.

Albert Einstein could never accept that the world is illogical.

Edwin Shrodinger said, "If I had known it was going to come to all this damn quantum jumping I would have never gotten into this business"

Richard Feynman said, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

Yet here we have Creative demanding that there be no 'groundless thoughts' in philosophy.

What constitutes a 'groundless thought'? Must all thoughts be grounded in 'logic'?

If so, then we cannot speak of any philosophy that is even remotely 'grounded' on quantum mechanics because quantum mechanics itself is logically 'groundless'.

How else would a 'groundless thought' be defined other than one that cannot be supported by 'logic'?

He never did write up his "Rule" that he would like to see implemented.

Maybe if he did that we can see how his rule works with respect to a quantum mechanical universe?

Would it allow for that? Or would it demand that everything be "grounded" in Newtonian logic?

I've actually come to grips with that one.

I simply accept that all things are not causal.

It makes perfect sense to me and I don't see it as being a problem at all. In fact, without some form of randomness how could we have free will?

I simply accept quantum randomness to be a fact. Things that already exist have causal affects on other things that already exist. However, vitual particles and fluctuation are popping into, and out of, existence all the time (with absolute randomness).

The only 'cause' is because this is the very nature of the quantum field. I accept that it's a sea of randomly bubbling potentiality.

For instructions on how to turn that bubbling sea of potentiality into manifest reality see Jeanniebean.

That's all I know.

could this be as simple as subjective vs. objective?

something that is objective can be measured the same way by everyone, and subjective cannot, it can only be measured by the person's own perception...(this is my own definition in my mind anyway)

example:

Pain is a subjective sensation. The only person that can "measure" the pain is the person experiencing the pain. The medical community has "objectified" the subjective experience however. The Pain Scale was invented...and now, the pain can be subjectively objectified!!

I worked as a professional in the field of Psychiatry and Addiction Nursing. So much of what I did was subjective based on what the person told me they were thinking, what they were thinking about, how clearly they were thinking, how connected to "rationale" thought they were, what their thought process was...

yet, I had no bells or whistles to tell me IF I was doing something right, or IF the patient had improved...it was based almost entirely on perception...

when I was early in my profession, I worked all over the hospital..and believe me, there are ways to measure almost everything a patient does...there were ways to get objective measures on almost everything without much input from the patient...EXCEPT a few things, like their level of pain for instance...

so, for me...I think that it is perception...and philosophy is tied closely to the enlightenment of one's self concept and how a person views themselves in that concept...

The Looking Glass Self theory was one I always liked from Sociology, but I digress...

But isn't this basically the difference between philosophy and physics?

If something can be objectively measured the same by everyone, it becomes physics (or science). When I say 'physics' I actually mean all of the physical sciences, chemistry, biology, etc.

The very nature of philosophy is the pondering of thoughts which cannot be objective (i.e. they cannot be determined by the scientific method of the physical sciences).

Therefore, by your very observation here, philosophy necessarily must be only those thoughts that are still entirely 'subjective'.

Otherwise, they could be moved over to the physical sciences.

This is why I hold that philosophy cannot even be determined.

If it could be, it would no longer be philosophy, it would be physics.

Hey, that's my personal view anyway.

Philosophy, by it's very definition, is entirely subjective and unprovable, because if anything in philosophy could be objectively proven it would instantly become "physics" and would no longer be "philosophy".

That's a great point.

In fact, a previous example I gave in this thread deserves repeating here.

At one time Aristotle believed (entirely intuitively) that all objects come to rest naturally. This was his philosophical subjective idea based on what he believed to be his experience.

Later, Isaac Newton proposed that objects tend to retain whatever motion they have unless acted on by a force. (that may even have still been a subjective philosophical guess at that time).

As time passed we saw that this could actually be tested and once it was tested and thus we actually had 'grounds' to believe it other than just because people were intuitively guessing, it was MOVED from philosophy over to physics.

In short, all philosophical ideas are just intuitive hunches until they can be proven. Once proven, they become science, and then they are no longer philosophy.

It's no wonder philosophy appears to have no success!

Everytime it succeeds the success story moves over to science.

it is not the destination, my friend, it is indeed...the journey!!

Truly.

Seriously though, I would really like to see what Michael had in mind with respect to a particular rule or guideline.

I think it would be interesting to see how it would be worded.

I would imagine that whatever the rule would be it would be fairly short and easy to understand if he was expecting it to be implemented on the forums.

He got our curiousity up and then never even said what the rule would be precisely.

Speaking of "grounds" - every issue that any person has an opinion on is based on some grounds. Every opposition to that opinion also has a foundation for that individual.

The greatest challenge is not to dismiss based on differences, but to find the "common grounds." In asking open questionions and occasionally giving your own reasons for an opinion, we are able to explore how we agree.

Once we have a "common ground" we can more readily identify the differences because having identified the common we have identified how we are alike.

As others have referenced, culture is often the reason for our differences and we could all stand to learn about anothers culture which will help explain how and why our common ground diverges into alternate paths of thinking.

Sometimes a minor detail can create a huge debate because we focus on the differences and forget how much we have in common.

Just for the record, those of us who have lived our entire lives in a strictly individualistic culture have the most difficult time taking the challenge to find common ground. The reason is because our very identity is so tightly wrapped around the idea that our value as a human depends on our uniqueness as an individual.

So for those who come from more collectivist cultures I am offering that perspective as explanation, NOT as an excuse.

HI INVISIBLE - good to see your interesting thread.

grrrrr wrote:


Education is about learning and every couse of study begins with basics. It's all about steps in a process and learning to think critically is a process. You can never lose your value as a human but anything you learn can incrase your contributions. So you just keep reading and posting in these threads, you will learn something. I do, everytime I come to this community. In here I have found some of the greatest teachers I've had the pleasure to encounter.

If I may use the following to exemplify "common grounds"



Notice this is all about the 'differences'. The question in this whole thread seems to be about dismissing anothers opinion based on differences, not on grounds.

We might more easily overcome this problem by first identifing how the two ideas are alike and then look at the reasons for their divergence.

(NOTE: the following is my view and is not related to the quote above)

Notice I said to look for the reasons, not to assume, not to dismiss, but to ask questions and paying attention to the answers. If the answer does not clearly state the 'grounds' on which the diversity is based then we need to ask more questions. The tone of the questions needs to be genuine and not threatening or condescending.

We do tend to get that way, I think out of frustration. But questions are our best tool, we need to use that tool not abuse it.

Thank you so much Di! Sometimes you can walk all around a thing without hitting it head on.

This was mentioned before simply as agreement and also as context, its all three but most precisely its the commonality of distinct things.

This is how I myself relate all particles, forces, things, ideas, premises and there conclusions. For something to be distinct it must have characteristics, and what is most important to take note in such a precise format as a philosophical conversation is the common grounds, the characteristics, and/or relationships of interaction. To hell with semantics, I agree with Feynman to know a thing is not in a label. Its to know its interactions, properties, its characteristics, its essence.

Without some kind of framework the two builders in conversation create a structure that falls down. Or sprawls out like an urban wasteland and is just as chaotic and messy and indecipherable.

ok, im over it. sigh./

Most excellent - characteristics. Of course that would definately help to build a case between like and unlike.

We will always a problem with semantics so we need to find a way to concentrate on other "characteristics." I like it, good input.

The point I was trying to make concerning Rosmini is that Rosmini did indeed give his 'grounds'.

His 'grounds' were the very simple observation that he feels his premise is obviously 'self-evident'.

He says,...



In other words, he believes that his premise should be self-evident to anyone. He probably goes on to elaborate why he feels this way, especially after saying, "if it were not for the doubt prevalent in modern thinking".

Just the same, it should be clear that his major 'grounds' for his position is based on the simply idea that he feels his premise should be 'self-evident'.

And there's nothing wrong with. We either accept his premise and see where it leads. Or we simlpy disagree that it's 'self-evident' and explain why we feel some other premise is more evident.

But we don't tell him, "It's impossible to think the way you do and if you think that way you are just kidding yourself."

That's not a philosophical approach. Where's the grounds for that?

Why would we do that?

We either accept his views or simply say we feel differently and then perhaps offer our views and why we hold our premises, which may be for the very same reason. We might simply feel that our premise should be 'self-evident' and obvious. That was the reason he gave.

There's no need to tell Rosmini that he can't possibly think the way his does. What's to be gained by that? That would just be condescending to Rosmini.

Starting out with 'self-evident' premise is perfectly acceptable in philosophy. People do it all the time.

Aristotle thought it was 'self-evident' that all things naturally come to rest.

Isaac Newton thought it was 'self-evident' that all things retain their motion unless forces act on them.

These were simply two different 'philosophical' views until one of them became an 'objective scientific fact'.

Then and only then could Newton say to Aristotle, "Its impossible to think the way you do, you're only kidding yourself if you think that way".

But even at that point couldn't Aristotle reply by saying, "Well, I don't know, just because your intuition turned out to be right and mine didn't doesn't mean it was impossible for me to think that way. It still makes intuitive sense to me that things should naturally come to rest. "

Could we honestly say that Aristotle's 'thought' was impossible just because the universe didn't happen to match it? Clearly he had the thought and it made sense to him at the time.

To whomever it applies...

The presuppositional judgement in thinking is sickening...

Think what you may about me, and about what you think my intent or understanding is, but...

Speak for yourself, because you have slandered my understanding so severely that if anyone believes it, it would be as if one were reading my translation of a Hebrew text and placing all of their faith, confidence, and understanding in that translation...

I do not speak Hebrew.

This is the epitome of a faith based belief without proper understanding regarding the content of that particular belief.


James...

The example of Antonio Rosmini did not, in any way, contradict my view on thought/languge/belief. For you to make that claim is a truly sad thing, and it substantiates my recent belief that you did not understand anything in that thread beyond your own presupposition.

I will not spend any more time attempting to help you understand.

Be well...





---------------------------------------------------------------------


There are grounds for all belief, whether the believer can remember and identify them or not.

If someone makes a wrongful claim about what they think another's view is, then those grounds rest entirely in their own belief. I called that groundless... although, it truly is not, it is just based upon illogical grounds.

Logical grounds can be shown to make sense.

That is all I wanted. That is what philosophy is supposed to be about. This forum is a disgrace to philosophical thought, and the name should be more aptly called 'Metaphysics' and 'New Age Religion' because that more closely reflects the allowed content.

Be well...

Jeremy...



Thank you for what had to be an exhaustive following of my thoughts... especially through all of the deflections.

Sweet point!

But then... to that higher dimension there would be one higher that would stll be chaos.

Some people are so misunderstood.

Although I agree that "Metaphysics" is discussed a lot in this "philosophy and science" forum, I have (and probably others have) asked for a metaphysics forum but it was not forthcoming.

The specific 'religious" forums like the "other" forum does not show up for people who specify a certain religion therefore it is not available for all public viewing or discussion, it is more like a private little club.

So for the lack of a Metaphysics forum, you will probably have to grin and bare it when your discussions take on a metaphysical flavor.

I see nothing wrong with metaphysics. If it bothers the philosophers, I guess thats their problem.

Nobody is forcing you to post here, you are welcome to find another place which you dont find disgraceful.

I said it in the other thread on this subject....This is a FREE DATING site. What do you really expect?

I am educated but not in philosphy, i am intelligent but not well read. I dont have time to make sure my posts are 'grounded' in the way you would like them to be. But i still have thoughts and sometimes i want to share them. And i will share them. I have no reason to be intimidated or ashamed that you might think my thoughts are not valid.

Maybe you would like to join me in a humour thread, and i will point out all your posts that aren't funny? Should we have a mod who deletes every post that doesn't amuse them?

The exact name of the forum is not important, Metareligion or New Age Physics or Philosophy or whatever. Post a thread on any of those subjects and people will reply with their thougts and opinions. Its simple. If its too simple for you, you know what to do.