general Western philosophy debate

[demon]

I like to debate philosophy, and the main philosophical schools of thought include rationalism and idealism (which usually go together,) and empiricism and idealism (which usually go together.)

Idealism is the viewpoint that existence is fundamentally that which exists as 'ideal forms' (as Socrates & Plato said) rather than matter, and materialism is the opposing viewpoint that only matter exists. These are monist viewpoints that there is one substance, and in between are dualists/'realists,' but they probably have to mainly take one position or the other.

Rationalism is the viewpoint that reason & logic is the only way to get information, and empiricism is the opposing viewpoint that the senses, particularly by getting information from experiments, is the only way to get information. Some scientists try to use both, but I am not sure what the philosophical term is for that viewpoint--likely also 'realists.'

The first rationalist idealists were the great ancient/Classical Greek pagan thinkers such as Pythagoras, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Socrates, Plato, among many others until the time of Plotinus, Hypatia, etc. After her public murder by Orthodox Christian monks, which caused the closure of the Neoplatonic academy and the end of widespread Greek philosophy, the Classical Age changed to the Dark Ages, and there were few/no more rationalist idealists that were famous until maybe Descartes and the German idealists. The main idea of rationalism since then is The Principle of Sufficient Reason, which can be stated as that there is a reason everything is the way it is and not otherwise.

Highly intelligent rationalists would also be gnostic: in favour of knowing, and against believing. Though this makes them atheists, if an idea of a 'god' is clearly defined, it can be judged whether that idea seems rational or not, and some rationalists argue that some such ideas are rational, though they may not have evidence.

Philosophy relates to paganism because if one is talking about Western Philosophy, starting from Classical Greece, or even talking about in that sense, one can call 'Philosophy' synonymous with Hellenismos... but German idealism developed the ideas of Descartes and Classical Greek Philosophy further. I wish more Teutonic 'heathens' would explore German idealism and its Greek & Cartesian roots.

The first materialists were the ancient Greek Atomists, and Aristotle was sort of materialist, though he originated many important ideas that the Neoplatonists brought back into rationalist idealism.

There really may be no strictly rationalist philosophy (i.e. one firstly using axioms that refer to the idea of reason and what is derived) outside of Western pagan philosophy. Ancient India developed several types of philosophy that may have focused on reason, at least somewhat rational principles, but at the same time as various arbitrary ones they just thought were rational such as the principle something is true 'if someone of authority says.' That does not mean the other schools of thought are empiricist: most are belief-based. It is sort of like empiricism in that one senses what someone tells one, or what one read, instead of exercising reasoning skills.

Most monotheism is a lot like materialism because it has put a focus on what 'God' does for one in this world, in most cases with either a semi-materialist or fully materialist eschatology (idea about the 'end' and after,) and making people focus on 'God' and materialistic rewards rather than their own psyche and, as Plato condoned and said philosophers should live by, 'truth, goodness, and beauty' above riches.

Science is of course almost all empiricist materialist, which is unfortunate, because the first known scientists were also mathematicians, and mathematical philosophy is traditionally rationalist idealist, as Pythagoras started it, who said 'all is number,' 'number rules the universe,' which Socrates & Plato paraphrased.

I am a mathematical rationalist idealist: I think everything is mathematics, the only source of absolute truth. Athena and Thoth (who Hermes was syncretized with) are the gods of maths, which was also said to be taught by Prometheus. Maths is not just about numbers, arithmetic, equations, shapes, and even processes, but about reasoning & logic itself, and proofs. It is actually the vastest subject of knowledge (such as with at least 80 volumes by one of the greatest 1700s mathematicians, and modern proofs that are 500 pages to prove a short statement) and the only one that has been built up for millennia without change, unlike philosophy & science, which maths can be called the synthesis of. I think there are two separate ways of thinking about the universe: mathematical, superstitional.

Though I am atheist & misotheist about the idea of a 'creator deity,' I am hypothetically polytheist and autotheist. I think beings that attain full mastery of mathematics could become 'gods.' To most people, much of what I said in this post will sound bizarre, but all the various ideas of most people sound bizarre to rationalist idealist mathematicians, the great thinkers of the world who have caused the most progress for millennia... even non-rationalist-idealist mathematicians, rationalist idealist philosophers & scientists, have done so to great extents.

I would like to start a discussion of rationalist idealism and empiricist materialism in the context of paganism. Do you think there is an explanation for everything, i.e. that objectivity exists, and that reason, related to mathematics, is how to find it, or do you think some/all things cannot be explained, i.e. that there is no objectivity and that reasoning is unimportant or even not good?

Do you think reality is fundamentally alive/mental/spiritual, or made of 'dead matter?' If you are dualist, if one had to choose, would one say matter is fundamentally mind, or that mind is fundamentally matter?

After discussing these topics, we could continue on to any of Western philosophy and perhaps compare it to Eastern ones, but hopefully without the dogma/guru-worship/theology, etc.

[PsykhikosAnarchosNautikos]

Re: general Western philosophy debate

Do you think there is an explanation for everything, i.e. that objectivity exists, and that reason, related to mathematics, is how to find it, or do you think some/all things cannot be explained, i.e. that there is no objectivity and that reasoning is unimportant or even not good?

I think reasoning is very important, but I follow Elphas Levi's (I know that's not his real name, but I forgot it, so I use this moniker) "faith and reason." Not faith in the idea one needs to blindly worship, and not even faith in its etymological sense (to trust), but in a more (personal) post-modern viewpoint of mystery. Basically, science and logic cannot explain everything (not even math) but neither can religious/spiritual and philosophical ideals. They cannot explain objective truth on their own, they need each other, much like a male needs a female to have children (or sperm needs eggs in the modern scientific way of 'test-tube babies').

The only universal truth I believe in is that we each have a subjective viewpoint that affects our objective worlds, even if it is only in a subjective way. Where some choose to allow others their personal beliefs and others try to force their personal beliefs upon others as if it were objective reality is irrelevant, as each viewpoint is a subjective reality. Both are quite real for the individuals involved and if that were not true than the disagreement would not exist. For example, I believe that the Purple Monkey is the deification of music and comedy. Purple Monkey is very real to me, but to you Purple Monkey is just my psychosis or over active imagination. No matter what you say or think or provide evidence against Purple Monkey, I see the beauty and awesomeness of Purple Monkey everywhere and convince others of Purple Monkey's existence, or they convince themselves, thus from a subjective experience I have created or observed an objective reality from a subjective one.

All that to say, I think all things can be explained, but not exactly in an objective 'true for all' way. I think it is unimportant and can cause problems. Actually it already has- war and social unrest. On the other hand, the search for finding the 'unified field theory' of reality is a noble quest as long as we allow others their own truths.

Do you think reality is fundamentally alive/mental/spiritual, or made of 'dead matter?'

Personally, nothing is dead. Everything has some sort of vibration, whether it is truly intelligent or self-reliant is another matter, being that without an external force it cannot move or act on its own behalf, but I perceive everything has some sort of vibrational frequency. If I can perceive an object, be it an animal or plastic bucket, it can perceive me one way or another but that animals/objects perception may not be the way in which I think it is. The nature of existence is a mind f@#! and I love it.

If you are dualist, if one had to choose, would one say matter is fundamentally mind, or that mind is fundamentally matter?

My favorite explanation of the creation of the modern universe I have come across is the Hindu cosmogony of the Shiva/Shakti polarity (of course this theory, or similar ones, are found in almost every mythological account of creation). This theory explains that Shiva is the All Pervading Consciousness but is static without the moving force of Shakti, or energy (anthropomorphised as Parvati and/or Kali), and Shakti is just random and violent movement without the consciousness of Shiva. I think energy is a form of matter and I am a believer in balance and polarity, but to answer your question, if I had to choose, I would say matter is fundamentally mind as energy follows the mind (according to magical and Chinese energy theories and practices).

[demon]

Re: general Western philosophy debate

I think reasoning is very important, but I follow Elphas Levi's (I know that's not his real name, but I forgot it, so I use this moniker) "faith and reason." Not faith in the idea one needs to blindly worship, and not even faith in its etymological sense (to trust), but in a more (personal) post-modern viewpoint of mystery. Basically, science and logic cannot explain everything (not even math) but neither can religious/spiritual and philosophical ideals. They cannot explain objective truth on their own, they need each other, much like a male needs a female to have children (or sperm needs eggs in the modern scientific way of 'test-tube babies').

It is good to consider some post-modern/existentialist ideas, but I do not think most are the best, and I do not really want to get into your or Levi's 'private language'... so you can have a 'post-modern (personal) viewpoint of mystery,' but that does not mean you cannot be 100% rational. Of course, most people sometimes want to take a break and focus on mythos (which I would call mythology & emotion) rather than logos (reason,) but that does not mean mythos is equal to logos, which mythos is not. Maths can explain everything. Anything anyone claims that is not the case for, I can debunk, as I will do below. What were you saying science & logic need--faith? I was not even emphasizing mainstream science, but was arguing against it. Sure, maths can seem mysterious, but it still depends more on reason & logic (and logic is fully expressible with maths,) and eventually the truth of the mystery has to be known... I just do not know what that means in the context of your private langauge... maybe if you quoted or explained Levi in more detail I would understand. He was once a very interesting person to me and may still be.

The only universal truth I believe in is that we each have a subjective viewpoint that affects our objective worlds, even if it is only in a subjective way. Where some choose to allow others their personal beliefs and others try to force their personal beliefs upon others as if it were objective reality is irrelevant, as each viewpoint is a subjective reality. Both are quite real for the individuals involved and if that were not true than the disagreement would not exist. For example, I believe that the Purple Monkey is the deification of music and comedy. Purple Monkey is very real to me, but to you Purple Monkey is just my psychosis or over active imagination. No matter what you say or think or provide evidence against Purple Monkey, I see the beauty and awesomeness of Purple Monkey everywhere and convince others of Purple Monkey's existence, or they convince themselves, thus from a subjective experience I have created or observed an objective reality from a subjective one.

I find it strange there would be only one universal truth and that it would be what you say. If I chose one--and I will only choose a most important one (besides 'everything is mathematics')--it is Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason, i.e. 'there is a reason everything is the way it is and not otherwise.' Sure, most people have their own subjective reality--so what? That does not mean there is not objective reality. For you to even say you have a subjective viewpoint, we are using a common, objective language, because we are capable of that because of how the universe works... and if you do not think that is the case--if you think you are fully in your own reality, and that is the only one valid to you--I may as well stop debate with you right here... I do not think that is what you are saying, but with your emphasis of subjective reality, it is pretty close, and surely you could consider whether there might be more that is objectively true.

As for your 'purple monkey,' well, it has a geometric form, or it is not a monkey. It has biological existence (such a biology that light reflected off it when it is seen to humans makes it purple) & processes fundamentally described by maths, or it is not a monkey. As for any psychological interpretation, you seemed to assume I would have some sort of materialist-related one, when it was clear all along that is not my viewpoint. Sure, the monkey means something to you, but as I started to explain, even one's subjective reality is mathematical, and because it is and that is what it has in common with the objective, you can communicate your subjective reality and have it make sense to others.

All that to say, I think all things can be explained, but not exactly in an objective 'true for all' way. I think it is unimportant and can cause problems. Actually it already has- war and social unrest. On the other hand, the search for finding the 'unified field theory' of reality is a noble quest as long as we allow others their own truths.

So you think objective truth could cause problems rather than solve them... but you think the development of grand unified theory is 'noble?' Then is it objective, and why would other 'truths' be better? Physics fully depends on mathematics, which does not depend on anything, so surely mathematics is most 'noble.' If a truth is anything but objective, then obviously it would not have caused problems except by people resisting the truth--after people had that sort of attitude... but it is the truth which will solve that problem in the end--otherwise society would still just be violent from people's various ideas they claim are objective, but are actually not, so your argument has flaws. The only sort of exception is if you give examples like the knowledge about atoms, but that has been just as beneficial (if not more) as harmful. The whole idea you would have perhaps gotten to, that the objective truth could finally lead to ruin society rather than improve it, is one of the most absurd, anti-intellectual ideas I have ever heard. What is going to make society better then--lies; half-truths with permanent conflict? No: truth.

Personally, nothing is dead. Everything has some sort of vibration, whether it is truly intelligent or self-reliant is another matter, being that without an external force it cannot move or act on its own behalf, but I perceive everything has some sort of vibrational frequency. If I can perceive an object, be it an animal or plastic bucket, it can perceive me one way or another but that animals/objects perception may not be the way in which I think it is. The nature of existence is a mind f@#! and I love it.

Ok, so we halfway agree there, though I am not sure what you mean by 'vibration.' I do not agree that nothing cannot move without external force. Of course, that can be described to be true for things such as rocks, if you observe one in a 'closed system of physics,' but living/thinking beings of course also move because of their own internal force, or they would be 'dead' (i.e. their life force or energy would stop and their bodies would be reabsorbed by Earth and then controlled by its own internal force, which in the wider context is of course acting upon rocks, part of Earth.)

My favorite explanation of the creation of the modern universe I have come across is the Hindu cosmogony of the Shiva/Shakti polarity (of course this theory, or similar ones, are found in almost every mythological account of creation). This theory explains that Shiva is the All Pervading Consciousness but is static without the moving force of Shakti, or energy (anthropomorphised as Parvati and/or Kali), and Shakti is just random and violent movement without the consciousness of Shiva. I think energy is a form of matter and I am a believer in balance and polarity, but to answer your question, if I had to choose, I would say matter is fundamentally mind as energy follows the mind (according to magical and Chinese energy theories and practices).

For over a decade, Hindu cosmology was my favourite before I came to Pythagorean-Neoplatonic-Cartesian-Leibnizian ideas. I still use non-Greek-based philosophy for figures of speech (even extensively) and a few serious ideas, such as that of Shakti as an aspect of 'consciousness.' Shakti (or specific Shaktis, since I suppose it is equivalent to 'devi') has been portrayed before, and of course Parvati and Kali would be described to have their own impersonal forms as well. I also think there is balance (to some extent, or there will be) and probably 'polarity.'

The modern view I am talking about is similar to both the Hindu and mainstream scientific one. The idea is that the universe started from a singularity, but not how physics describes (or actually does not describe it,) but as a mathematical point/'Monad' (described by Neoplatonism, and similar to 'Brahman' or a couple higher levels sometimes also called the same thing) at which infinite points/'monads' (lives/minds/souls/spirits in the form of points) were at (it is still strange even to me, but you can move points from an infinite space to a finite one that takes up space, so you can probably also do it to one that takes up no space) existed. They expanded to infinite space and 'matter' came into being as the energy produced by the interaction of all monads. This modern mathematical idea also states that the universe came into being after the previous universe ended in perfect order, which was then reduced to a mathematical point (or, perhaps alternatively, a blank space,) and our universe is going towards perfect order. The cosmology is similar to Hinduism and advanced science theories, but the spiritual implications are closer to more advanced schools of Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Taoist, etc., thought, along with the rationalism of mathematics, but not so much the vague theorizing (continually overturned) of science other than just using it for practical applications.

[PsykhikosAnarchosNautikos]

Re: general Western philosophy debate

It is good to consider some post-modern/existentialist ideas, but I do not think most are the best, and I do not really want to get into your or Levi's 'private language'... so you can have a 'post-modern (personal) viewpoint of mystery,' but that does not mean you cannot be 100% rational. Of course, most people sometimes want to take a break and focus on mythos (which I would call mythology & emotion) rather than logos (reason,) but that does not mean mythos is equal to logos, which mythos is not. Maths can explain everything. Anything anyone claims that is not the case for, I can debunk, as I will do below. What were you saying science & logic need--faith? I was not even emphasizing mainstream science, but was arguing against it. Sure, maths can seem mysterious, but it still depends more on reason & logic (and logic is fully expressible with maths,) and eventually the truth of the mystery has to be known... I just do not know what that means in the context of your private langauge... maybe if you quoted or explained Levi in more detail I would understand. He was once a very interesting person to me and may still be.

Levi was of course a ceremonial magician, and what I believe he is referring to as 'faith and reason' is a uniting of religious feeling with scientific discovery. That is how I take it. Basically, allow love to flow through and be one with your god/dess, but do not let too much blind belief stagnate your views and actions on an ever changing world (scientific discovery). In other words, don't be such a zealot you judge or harm others for something based in scientific fact, and for the scientists, don't be so close-minded that certain things just can't be explained by modern scientific means. I also include psychology and holistic medicine as a science in their own rights, and in these fields it is especially important to have 'faith' you are going to be healed, but also have enough 'reason' that if what your holistic practitioner is telling you/giving you is not aiding your health, you simply use your logic and go to a doctor.

I find it strange there would be only one universal truth and that it would be what you say. If I chose one--and I will only choose a most important one (besides 'everything is mathematics')--it is Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason, i.e. 'there is a reason everything is the way it is and not otherwise.' Sure, most people have their own subjective reality--so what? That does not mean there is not objective reality. For you to even say you have a subjective viewpoint, we are using a common, objective language, because we are capable of that because of how the universe works... and if you do not think that is the case--if you think you are fully in your own reality, and that is the only one valid to you--I may as well stop debate with you right here... I do not think that is what you are saying, but with your emphasis of subjective reality, it is pretty close, and surely you could consider whether there might be more that is objectively true.

I don't have one universal truth, but from my observations on line and in society, many people do have a universal truth, which is highly subjective. That is all I was referring to. There is a very obvious objective world, if there wasn't, why would I be talking to a mathematician right now trying to learn another viewpoint? (rhetorical)

As for your 'purple monkey,' well, it has a geometric form, or it is not a monkey. It has biological existence (such a biology that light reflected off it when it is seen to humans makes it purple) & processes fundamentally described by maths, or it is not a monkey. As for any psychological interpretation, you seemed to assume I would have some sort of materialist-related one, when it was clear all along that is not my viewpoint. Sure, the monkey means something to you, but as I started to explain, even one's subjective reality is mathematical, and because it is and that is what it has in common with the objective, you can communicate your subjective reality and have it make sense to others.

That makes sense.

Just so you know, Purple Monkey was just an example. It's the Red Giraffe you need to worry about.

So you think objective truth could cause problems rather than solve them... but you think the development of grand unified theory is 'noble?' Then is it objective, and why would other 'truths' be better? Physics fully depends on mathematics, which does not depend on anything, so surely mathematics is most 'noble.' If a truth is anything but objective, then obviously it would not have caused problems except by people resisting the truth--after people had that sort of attitude... but it is the truth which will solve that problem in the end--otherwise society would still just be violent from people's various ideas they claim are objective, but are actually not, so your argument has flaws. The only sort of exception is if you give examples like the knowledge about atoms, but that has been just as beneficial (if not more) as harmful. The whole idea you would have perhaps gotten to, that the objective truth could finally lead to ruin society rather than improve it, is one of the most absurd, anti-intellectual ideas I have ever heard. What is going to make society better then--lies; half-truths with permanent conflict? No: truth.

Actually, it is not anti-intellectual or absurd to say that objective truth could cause more harm than good. An objective truth is that humans are over populating, and how do you stop over population? Weed out the poor, stupid and hungry or have people stop making so many babies. That is a truth, but it is harmful to the countless lives that would be taken from the objective stand point of over population. We could colonize another planet or rock, shrink humans or make Earth bigger to hold all the extra people, but that obviously isn't possible. Sometimes scientific discovery, in the name of objective truth, can be rather sociopathic. Animals are freely tested on for each new drug and syrum on the market- the objective truth is that animals have a lower intellectual capacity than humans, so it must be okay to stick needles full of disease and drugs into these creatures- that's an objective truth, but it is still harmful.

Ok, so we halfway agree there, though I am not sure what you mean by 'vibration.' I do not agree that nothing cannot move without external force. Of course, that can be described to be true for things such as rocks, if you observe one in a 'closed system of physics,' but living/thinking beings of course also move because of their own internal force, or they would be 'dead' (i.e. their life force or energy would stop and their bodies would be reabsorbed by Earth and then controlled by its own internal force, which in the wider context is of course acting upon rocks, part of Earth.)

By vibration I mean everything has its own frequency. With certain high resolution sound we can create perfect circles, squares, etc, in complicated and dynamic geometric shapes (cymatics). My understanding comes from sound healing and what quantum theories I am able to comprehend, where certain sounds create certain shapes and colors. Everything is moving constantly at a high rate that only psychics and certain scientific tools are able to pick up on.

[demon]

Re: general Western philosophy debate

Levi was of course a ceremonial magician, and what I believe he is referring to as 'faith and reason' is a uniting of religious feeling with scientific discovery. That is how I take it. Basically, allow love to flow through and be one with your god/dess, but do not let too much blind belief stagnate your views and actions on an ever changing world (scientific discovery). In other words, don't be such a zealot you judge or harm others for something based in scientific fact, and for the scientists, don't be so close-minded that certain things just can't be explained by modern scientific means. I also include psychology and holistic medicine as a science in their own rights, and in these fields it is especially important to have 'faith' you are going to be healed, but also have enough 'reason' that if what your holistic practitioner is telling you/giving you is not aiding your health, you simply use your logic and go to a doctor.

Ok; just be aware that 'faith' as 'religious feeling' is an obscure, probably original definition (it is not in the Oxford English Dictionary, OED) that does not include all religious feeling, and many people, such as myself (a gnostic) would object to the definition. Since faith is usually described as some sort of belief, I am against faith, but I may have 'religious' feelings--if one redefines 'religion' (which may be a relevant thing to do, but not so much with 'faith.') I looked up Levi and am much less interested in him than I used to be... apparently he was into some sort of mix of, or middle ground between, Satanism and Abrahamism (really the real form of Satanism, unless one defines it about other stuff like Set, etc.) As a gnostic rationalist idealist who would not necessarily call himself religious or a scientist (by the mainstream view,) faith is just irrelevant to me, and sort of a disturbing idea, just as much as dogmatic belief in science, actually.

I don't have one universal truth, but from my observations on line and in society, many people do have a universal truth, which is highly subjective. That is all I was referring to. There is a very obvious objective world, if there wasn't, why would I be talking to a mathematician right now trying to learn another viewpoint? (rhetorical)

You are confusing me, I do not want to get into all the details right now, but I suggest looking up definitions (in a very reliable dictionary like OED, or an Oxford one and various native & 'net ones for anywhere outside UK) of most philosophical words you use, to see if you are making much sense... as for your question, I do know some relativists/absurdists who talk to people just because they feel like it, but not because they want people to believe them, and not because they like talking to people, though in fact they do seem to sort of want to convince people (of who knows what) and state that they like that, even though they may also hate talking to people who they cannot get to become relativist/absurdist or react how they want. When it comes down to it, this may sort of be how everyone is: we want people to understand us, and may hope we are right, but few people are open to changing their ideas or even how they talk--if they use any private language. I have changed from both of those things much myself in the past several years.

Actually, it is not anti-intellectual or absurd to say that objective truth could cause more harm than good. An objective truth is that humans are over populating, and how do you stop over population? Weed out the poor, stupid and hungry or have people stop making so many babies. That is a truth, but it is harmful to the countless lives that would be taken from the objective stand point of over population. We could colonize another planet or rock, shrink humans or make Earth bigger to hold all the extra people, but that obviously isn't possible. Sometimes scientific discovery, in the name of objective truth, can be rather sociopathic. Animals are freely tested on for each new drug and syrum on the market- the objective truth is that animals have a lower intellectual capacity than humans, so it must be okay to stick needles full of disease and drugs into these creatures- that's an objective truth, but it is still harmful.

I maintain that it is anti-intellectual, and that, like some other philosophical words, you have an incorrect definition of truth. Is the truth that we are on this site what caused us to sign up here? No: we signed up, and then that became true--the truth is stated as an effect of a process that then became the situation as it is: according to the OED, and probably formal reasoning, the truth is the value measurement of whether a statement is true; the truth is an evaluation of a statement, but is not the situation itself in the universe that the statement describes. You are confusing two different things, and again coming up with examples that no one else has said in this discussion, and evaluating those to support your argument... about all I have done is used examples to explain my argument, or stated my philosophical viewpoint, but not so much made judgements about the implications of some statement... so in this case, again, you stated an example and made a judgement that you said means what something is, but that may not be the case. Your example above depends on a system of ethics. Some people may have the ethics, and some people may not. Whether what you said is true or not depends on whether the ethical premises are true, not just you saying 'that is objective truth,' because maybe it is not: you did not explain why it is, but seemed to be implying you had an argument against it, i.e. contradicting yourself and going against your whole argument. An argument based on a premise that could be true also says nothing about the idea of truth itself, i.e. epistemology, which is a separate subject in philosophy than ethics. Epistemology and ethics can be related, but it has to be done right--one cannot make an argument in one field and say that describes the fundamental nature of the other field, maybe unless one is a genius... but I am not aware of any historical world-changing 'big name' genius philosopher who has ever even done that.

By vibration I mean everything has its own frequency. With certain high resolution sound we can create perfect circles, squares, etc, in complicated and dynamic geometric shapes (cymatics). My understanding comes from sound healing and what quantum theories I am able to comprehend, where certain sounds create certain shapes and colors. Everything is moving constantly at a high rate that only psychics and certain scientific tools are able to pick up on.

Ok, well, as far as I know, only waves have frequency. So, one can define a couple other things, which have an existence from waves, to have frequency: namely sound and colour... anything else, and one would have to explain in detail a system of physics and or metaphysics (whatever you want to call it) of how anything else has waves. From a subjective viewpoint, I would agree or even claim that waves relate to our nature of self--that the action our minds do causes waves, and that this (as we agreed) is fundamentally mental--so we could say (if you have gotten into this) that our mind making waves relates to Shakti as 'conciousness' or mentation or the nature of mind... but it may take other ideas to explain how the reality of all minds creates the appearance of matter, and how the action and existence of these minds makes 'matter' or its appearance work... because 'everything' as an average person--other than us--would think, has an appearance of matter, which is not normally described as something that has waves. Most scientists are stuck on the 1600s Newtonian materialist (or Leibnizian, which is mentalist) worldview and trying to preserve its main ideas in an Einsteinian one (or Minklowskian one, i.e. the mathematics Einstein used) or newer one such as M-theory, which I think is absurd... and if anyone else joins the discussion, they will want to know how the world as they see it (even if they are largely religious, probably) is one in which everything has a wave (with frequency, along with wavelength, amplitude, and phase)... it is a very advanced idea, not only for them, but even for me, involving some of the most advanced maths there is today (analysis, as developed for several centuries, but which has still not solved the problems of physics, though it is closer than most people know, outside obscure contemporary philosophy) and not one I am so interested in as much as other maths. With the maths I am interested in--geometry--I would say everything (whether viewed from the mental or material way) has its own form... and it is the mathematical points that are the fundamental essence of the form, or of the minds that make the 'matter' (or 'energy') that make the form appear to be real, that are causing waves and reacting to them, which involves frequencies, etc. There is a lot of other stuff I could say about things... not just material (or mental) 'everything,' but points/minds themselves, and maybe abstract philosophical ideas or 'meta-ideas' rather than just 'everything'... but I think I have said a lot here. Cymatics sounds like an interesting thing, and I think I have seen some examples about it, though perhaps also some 'pseudoscience' about it, though of course I say science is a flawed subject (and is 'pseudomathematics')... one should be extremely skeptical, but I know firsthand, as I have said, that there is a mental/spiritual/psychic reality and mainstream science is only a tiny picture of reality inadequate for anything but limited (but highly successful) engineering.

This will be continued in my next post (the post size limit seems pretty short for a forum.)

[MaskedOne]

Re: general Western philosophy debate

post break

[demon]

Re: general Western philosophy debate

Thanks, MaskedOne... ok, here is the rest of what I had wrote... sometimes after I write several pages I just delete an entire page or few... maybe I would be more efficient if I did that, but I hope the size limit is changed.

Well, I have said a lot, and you have said a good amount... I hope I am not seeming to dry or unemotional, or argumentative... I like a good debate, even if it goes to the level of an 'argument' whether one thinks that has a good or bad connotation (to me it has both, but maybe not as bad as 'religion'--as I stated elsewhere, I am interested in most traditional or more intellectual modern non-Abrahamic religion, my foundation is from a philosophical position, which I see as grounded in Classical thought, or Hellenismos.) Our discussion seems to be getting into meta-discussion... if you want, I can try to criticize your word usage which is confusing me, and you can criticize anything I say for whatever reason, which one or both of us will probably do... but besides that, I would like to pose some traditional questions, since without those, there is not much left to debate... it will get into why you are confusing me and in my opinion might confuse others... and I certainly have confused people before I stopped using my own definitions, or before I studied some philosophy and then read thousands of pages, such as all Pythagoras' & Plato's work, some Aristotle, and the main far Eastern texts, as well as reading many definitions in many dictionaries, and probably having many days of discussion if you measure the hours... so do not take anything I say as an insult, even if it seems I am getting frustrated... sometimes I am just confused about what you say, and if you have a problem with anything I say, I will try to address that with as much patience I can... on a forum, that is easy, because the discussion is just slow, but people can leave anytime they want.

As I would describe us both being in the school of thought of mentalism, with whatever other schools of thought we may have, we already agree a lot, so I like the discussion and am willing to continue it as long as we both have something to say, though I do not use forums as much as chat rooms much anymore... occasionally I am in the site's one, and I am in some of the oldest pagan ones on the 'net every day and might mention them in another post.

Ok... now to some questions to continue the discussion. When I got into philosophy, starting from the Classical, I came across these questions, and I wanted to discuss them with people... now I only will if others want to discuss them, or we can discuss any philosophical topic. Some of the first questions Socrates asked, were, I think the following.

What is truth?
What is goodness?
What is beauty?
I would add another he probably asked: what is virtue?

Sometimes those lead to a lot more philosophical discussion... if not, later I will mention some more schools of thought, or first, perhaps what are considered the main fields of philosophy at the time of Aristotle, and what my viewpoints in that are, and see if that leads to any more discussion/debate.

Thanks for the discussion so far, and best wishes until we (or anyone) talk next...

[PsykhikosAnarchosNautikos]

Re: general Western philosophy debate

What is truth?
What is goodness?
What is beauty?
I would add another he probably asked: what is virtue?

From my perspective all of these are highly internal upon ones mental and emotional state and educational/intellectual level (this is my view of philosophy- it is not about the classics, that would be Classical Philosophy, where philosophy being 'love of wisdom' I feel each and every individual has their own philosophy and way of doing things in life [beliefs and practices]. That being said, I apologize for not being studied on the classics of the West, most of my philosophy is from Japanese and Chinese martial arts and modern day-oriented occultism, hence the metaphysical tone). With that said, I will answer these the best I can.

What is truth? This may get some ugly looks, but for this I will quote L Ron Hubbard;
"What is true for you is true for you, when you have lost that you have lost everything."
In this phrase I see truth as something that is acquired on an individual basis and when said individual loses a sense of truth they also lose a sense of themselves. What makes sense to the way and why the world works to the individual level is how I perceive truth. I do not believe in an ultimate truth because I see no evidence of it anywhere. People may say there is one truth, but that is their truth and not mine, nor others, and certain truths are real on one level or in another dimension, but not all encompassing. On Earth there is the truth that we cannot fly without help, nor can we run as fast as Superman. That is a truth on this dimension of solid matter. On the mental level it is true that we can create anything in any point in time, such as flying or a being as powerful, or more, than Superman or any other mythic superhero.

Truth is what it is and that is to be determined by each individual on what they want to see and experience as truth or not. This is where metaphysics comes in with the idea of the yogis and Siddhi powers, the Wudang and Shaolin Monks projecting energy and intention for healing or damage. You could also define truth as a common and shared belief, such as cultural taboos and customs. This is where metaphysics has a truth to it even in the external (what I mean when I say objective- I'm still foggy on the actual philosophy) world, as hundreds of thousands and even millions of others have witnessed these 'miracles' from before Buddha to the modern day. This is why science with atheist and rational views are also a truth- it is shared among the many that if science has not discovered it then we shouldn't mess with it or it doesn't exist (spirits, psychic phenomena, extraterrestrials etc).

Goodness

Goodness is the support and benefit of life, personal and otherwise. It is helping benefit oneself and others for the sake of benefiting others over what the individual gets in return (this is to say honest business owners are still doing good even though they are receiving payment for it). Kind actions and intentions.

Beauty

Beauty is something that is inspiring and attractive, such as a colorful garden, an artistic creation (music, dance, painting, etc), a person and feelings of creativity or awe. Beauty is more of an internal feeling or desire for romance, creativity, education, inspiration, joy and ecstasy.

Virtue

Virtue is the action of goodness and being a wise and noble personality- alone or in a group.

Sorry for the extremely short answers, but these all just stem from truth for me. Each one is decided upon the individuals preference and experience, as with almost everything else in life, especially intellectual and spiritual matters.

[Unlogisch]

Re: general Western philosophy debate

...newer one such as M-theory, which I think is absurd

I'm curious as to why you feel that M-theory is absurd, considering that M-theory is just a mathematical formalism describing a connection between the Heterotic and Type II models of string theory and so showing that, in this framework at least, all five major models of string theory are equivalent, in some sense. Thus, in order to declare M-theory absurd, one must declare all of string theory absurd which is a questionable thing to do, at best, given that there are many hundreds of variants of it and only a small fraction of them have been shown to be false through experimentation.
That, of course, leaves out entirely the enormous breadth of the mathematics that has resulted from or been influenced by investigations into string theories, such as perverse sheaf methods for cohomology in algebraic geometry, topological quantum field theories and the Gromov-Witten invariants in topology, and supersymmetry, quantum groups, and the proof of the monstrous moonshine conjecture in algebra, all of which are hugely important. (By the way, for the sake of transparency, my only rigorous knowledge of the aforementioned topics relates to topological quantum field theories - as well as conformal field theories (yes, they are both supposed to be plural) - but I'm only in my junior year at university so I'd say I'm doing pretty well on that score.)

On a slightly less tangential note: is there room for analytic philosophy in this discussion?

[demon]

Re: general Western philosophy debate

From my perspective all of these are highly internal upon ones mental and emotional state and educational/intellectual level [...]

Ok... to some extent, that is true, but I still claim there is absolute (and the only) truth that is analytic, a priori, eternal, necessary, deductive, based on reason, mathematical, rationalist, idealist, objective, rather than synthetic, a posteriori, temporal, contingent, inductive, based on 'fact' (interpretation,) 'scientific' & most religious, empiricist, materialist, subjective. The simplest definition I use would be from the OED, 'II.5.a Conformity with fact; agreement with reality; accuracy, correctness, verity (of statement or thought),' and if Socrates said anything about it (it has been a long time since I read,) and the rest of the words in question, I would want to use his ideas as well, but I think he either got people to definitions like I quoted, if simple enough, or just got people towards more general, but not fully defined, ideas, if they were more complicated or at all elaborated.

What is truth? This may get some ugly looks, but for this I will quote L Ron Hubbard;
"What is true for you is true for you, when you have lost that you have lost everything."[...]

Ok... you made some interesting points in the explanation of your answer, but I think if your answer is the quote, then you completely avoided answering. If people have a debate... or discussion... however this turns out, then they have to be able to understand each other, which usually means having actual definitions about something (which the quote is not) whether they agree or not.

Goodness is the support and benefit of life, personal and otherwise. It is helping benefit oneself and others for the sake of benefiting others over what the individual gets in return (this is to say honest business owners are still doing good even though they are receiving payment for it). Kind actions and intentions.

I basically agree with that (except I could say it could be focused on others and the individual equally, though I would say it is best to focus more on the side of others,) but I will quote OED again. Goodness is '1 The quality or condition of being good. a.1.a Of persons: Moral excellence, virtue. Occasionally in pl.: Good qualities,' and good is (in this context) '3 Of qualities or attributes. a.A.I.3.a of a quality generally: Commendable, conducing to the value or merit of the subject.' How you defined goodness agrees with this definition and my own description of 'value or merit,' etc... but goodness may also just have a wider definition.

Beauty is something that is inspiring and attractive, such as a colorful garden, an artistic creation (music, dance, painting, etc), a person and feelings of creativity or awe. Beauty is more of an internal feeling or desire for romance, creativity, education, inspiration, joy and ecstasy.

I agree with that description in general, but, again there is a wider definition, as OED says '2 That quality or combination of qualities which affords keen pleasure to other senses (e.g. that of hearing), or which charms the intellectual or moral faculties, through inherent grace, or fitness to a desired end; cf. beautiful a. 3.' In other words, in the intellectual sense, there are ideas such as 'mathematical beauty' when talking about the objects of mathematics itself.

Virtue is the action of goodness and being a wise and noble personality- alone or in a group.

I think I agree with that as much as the applicable OED definition '2.a Conformity of life and conduct with the principles of morality; voluntary observance of the recognized moral laws or standards of right conduct; abstention on moral grounds from any form of wrong-doing or vice.' Like most people here, I have less strict a definition of what is moral than some religious people, but I still think there is some sort of altruistic morality that is usually objective.

Sorry for the extremely short answers, but these all just stem from truth for me. [...]

Some people would not even want to discuss it, or would give shorter answers.

I'm curious as to why you feel that M-theory is absurd, considering that M-theory is just a mathematical formalism describing a connection between the Heterotic and Type II models of string theory and so showing that, in this framework at least, all five major models of string theory are equivalent, in some sense. Thus, in order to declare M-theory absurd, one must declare all of string theory absurd which is a questionable thing to do, at best, given that there are many hundreds of variants of it and only a small fraction of them have been shown to be false through experimentation.

AFAIK, M-theory is not purely mathematical: it is theoretical in physics. M-theory also talks about branes, which can be defined in terms of strings, so obviously I was saying that string theory is absurd, and above I said I am not in favour of mainstream science, so clearly what I call 'not absurd' has nothing to do with experimentation, rather than maths. As I possibly said above, the accepted ideas of science have been overturned every few thousand, hundred, or tens of years, such as in physics: starting with several Classical physics theories, then Newtonian and Einsteinian physics.

That, of course, leaves out entirely the enormous breadth of the mathematics that has resulted from or been influenced by investigations into string theories, such as perverse sheaf methods for cohomology in algebraic geometry, topological quantum field theories and the Gromov-Witten invariants in topology, and supersymmetry, quantum groups, and the proof of the monstrous moonshine conjecture in algebra, all of which are hugely important.

I suppose that is true, but it does not mean M-theory is correct, and if the maths is important, it would have been developed anyway. Scientists who can do math, rather than just believing what they are told about science, are indeed somewhat more intelligent, and so are mathematicians even if they have mainstream scientific views, but IMO, idealist--Platonic--mathematicians are the most rational people... and rationalism and idealism, as I may have said, traditionally go together as philosophical schools of thought.

On a slightly less tangential note: is there room for analytic philosophy in this discussion?

As you may guess, analytic philosophy is not particularly something I want to discuss, but I am willing to debate against it... and it is Western (though I stated we could debate a bit of far Eastern if anyone wants)... so if you or anyone wants to debate, as thread is intended for, we should have some opposing views. The three of us who participated so far probably all disagree and agree with each other in different ways... so if you think it discussing analytic philosophy would lead to some good discussion or debate for yourself, by all means, start discussing.

[PsykhikosAnarchosNautikos]

Re: general Western philosophy debate

What is truth? This may get some ugly looks, but for this I will quote L Ron Hubbard;
"What is true for you is true for you, when you have lost that you have lost everything."

Obviously based on subjective truth:

Pocket Oxford American Dictionary:
"sub'jec'tive adj. 1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions."

"true: adj. 1. In accordance with fact or reality 2. rightly so called; genuine: true love 3. real or actual: she guessed my true intentions 4. accurate and exact 5. (true to) in keeping with a standard or expectation: true to his threats, he retaliated 6. loyal or faithful 7. correctly positioning or aligning; upright or level"

In this phrase I see truth as something that is acquired on an individual basis and when said individual loses a sense of truth they also lose a sense of themselves.

Definition 5 in a subjective sense. The individual had a certain internal (mental/emotional) expectation about a person and said person destroyed their world, let's say a lover broke it off, thus they have lost a sense of themselves because their standard of beauty and expectations of love have been destroyed.

What makes sense to the way and why the world works to the individual level is how I perceive truth. I do not believe in an ultimate truth because I see no evidence of it anywhere. People may say there is one truth, but that is their truth and not mine, nor others, and certain truths are real on one level or in another dimension, but not all encompassing.

Definitions 2 and 4 in a subjective sense. What is true for me from stems from what I have personally experienced, so it is genuine. When others try to impose their views as if mine are wrong and only theirs are correct is in fact, not accurate, because I, and others, quite obviously do not agree. Their beliefs are genuine to them as are mine to me (and many others in a birds eye view) so the fact remains that we both hold a truth.

On Earth there is the truth that we cannot fly without help, nor can we run as fast as Superman. That is a truth on this dimension of solid matter. On the mental level it is true that we can create anything in any point in time, such as flying or a being as powerful, or more, than Superman or any other mythic superhero.

All definitions. This is a genuine and expected fact of reality that we cannot fly like Superman (omit stories of nuns, monks and ascetics and those with wild imaginations). Even subjectively this is false because if one thinks they can fly, and tries from a three story building, is most likely going to die and surely regret it. I enjoy believing in the impossible and working towards it in my own weird ways, but I am still very much bound by natural law.

Not all truths, even subjective one, are nice.

[Unlogisch]

Re: general Western philosophy debate

AFAIK, M-theory is not purely mathematical: it is theoretical in physics. M-theory also talks about branes, which can be defined in terms of strings, so obviously I was saying that string theory is absurd... As I possibly said above, the accepted ideas of science have been overturned every few thousand, hundred, or tens of years, such as in physics: starting with several Classical physics theories, then Newtonian and Einsteinian physics.

I suppose that is true, but it does not mean M-theory is correct, and if the maths is important, it would have been developed anyway.

None of these statements is strictly true. Theoretical physics is basically just mathematics with a highly specialized focus and subject to the constraints of what is known about the physical nature of reality. Branes and strings are specific examples of what are known in topology and geometry as manifolds, which are some of the most important objects in all of mathematics, and so have a perfectly sound basis in mathematics. The only matter of contention is whether such objects have a sound basis in physics so I fail to see why you have rejected the notion, unless it is simply out of hand because it "doesn't make sense".

Further, neither Newtonian nor Einsteinian physics have been "overturned"; the results of both have been verified through experimentation many, many, times over and there is no reason to doubt either. For instance, we've only figured out how to construct functioning GPS systems because of Einstein's theories. Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's theories are not in competition with one another: Einstein's theories of special and general relativity actually extend the notions of Newtonian mechanics to the largest of scales where one cannot ignore things like the curvature of spacetime. Similarly, the notions of quantum mechanics are not in question - you wouldn't even have a computer or pretty much any other electronic gadget if quantum mechanics didn't work the way it has been confirmed to.

The whole point of string theory, and hence M-theory, is that it is one of the best candidates for a mathematical theory which bridges the gap between classical and quantum mechanics, both of which are known to be true. There are, of course, other candidates, such as loop quantum gravity, but none of them is particularly more intuitive than any other and this is simply as a result of the fact that they are concerned with objects that are incredibly small at incredibly high energy levels and the physical universe just doesn't behave like you'd think at those scales.

I suppose I should note that the word "theory", as it is used by mathematicians and physicists, actually means something rather different from what most people think it does: it actually means "a collection of true statements", rather than "some stuff that makes sense to us". The way in which this applies to string theory is that it is mathematically sound. However, here's where it gets confusing, it won't be physically true or false until it can be shown to be one or the other through experimentation.

I'm not trying to convince you that M-theory is correct - I just think it's premature to reject it out of hand as being absurd.

However, the contention that the mathematics "would have been developed anyway" is just wrong. There are many instances in the history of mathematics in which some particular piece of mathematics would not have been developed if not for explorations in physics. Prime examples of this phenomenon are real and complex analysis, both of which were developed rigorously in order to show that the methods of the calculus being used by "natural philosophers" (such as Newton, who was one of the persons responsible for the proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus) in explaining physical phenomena were logically sound. Another example would be the entire field of differential geometry: this large and thriving field of mathematics was initiated by Gauss in order to figure out how to measure the area of bumpy surfaces after being given the task of measuring the area of a parcel of land but it remained in almost total obscurity until Einstein read some papers by Tullio Levi-Civita and Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro on the subject of tensor analysis which provides the best foundation for differential geometry. It was the utility of differential geometry in describing general relativity that led to its initial growth as a field and it would most likely have languished as a footnote of mathematics otherwise.
The example I gave above, the proof of the monstrous moonshine conjecture, was only made possible by the Goddard-Thorn theorem from string theory.

There are numerous other examples but I need to get up early tomorrow...

I am not in favour of mainstream science.

See my above comments about GPS systems, computers, and gadgets and toss in roughly the same thing for: cars, structurally stable buildings, tests to screen for cancers and other deadly illnesses, the eradication of Polio in the developed world, etc...

One of the nice things about science is that it works regardless of whether or not you believe in it.

Note: I realize that this post may sound a little bit inflammatory so I wish to state for the record that it is my position - and that of most reputable scientists - that science is strictly concerned with the natural world, nothing more and nothing less.

- - - Updated - - -

With regard to the nature of truth: I feel that it is appropriate to have multiple definitions according to the situation. As mathematician, a notion of objective truth is absolutely necessary but, even then, I am not free from the constraint of having to take certain axioms as given - for example the axiom of choice, without which "very bad things" would happen, such as not being able to say that the Cartesian product of two nonempty sets is nonempty. (Trust me on this: that would be BAD.)

On the other hand, there are notions I adhere to which I would call subjective truths, such as the notion that it is inherently wrong to harm others without just cause (let's please not start a debate about the nature of "just cause", thanks...) or that I shouldn't jump on the table in the middle of dinner at a fancy restaurant and start to strip while singing a song about potatoes.

Somewhere between these two forms of truth there is the fact that, no matter how much I might try, I cannot know everything there is to know. Accepting this allows me, in turn, to accept my spiritual side without needing to analyze it much further than that.