Originally posted by Bosse de NageHi Bosse, it's been some time! Hope all is fine with you and yours😵
Is wisdom synonymous with truth?
Methinks that if one knows how the many things one commonly experiences are connected together, one's source of truth is knowledge. However, since the main problem is to connect our incomplete senses of the world with the existing physical world, we have to see and evaluate the causal connection between things instead of accepting the various effects we perceive as differ autonomous self-contained entities (because these effects are mind-only representations of the observers/ causal fields we happen to observe and, thus, they are deceptive).
So in reality a sentient being merely sees and decodes necessary connections; since this is the sole available source of truth and the sentient being is not aware of any other, each sentient being is the Truth. When the connections are validated and hold, the knowledge holds. Methinks the proper use of this kind of knowledge can be understood as “wisdom”, since any statement can always be analyzed and cross-checked in terms of necessary connections. The variations as regards logical and empirical truths start from that point, due to the necessity that our deductions from our theory of reality/ logical truths should match knowledge from our senses and experiments/ empirical truths. The problem is that we cannot prove that “something is true”, we can only demonstrate that “something is false” or “not false”
😵
Originally posted by black beetleLikewise. (We are fine.)
Hi Bosse, it's been some time! Hope all is fine with you and yours😵
Methinks that if one knows how the many things one commonly experiences are connected together, one's source of truth is knowledge. However, since the main problem is to connect our incomplete senses of the world with the existing physical world, we have to see and evaluate the caus ...[text shortened]... that “something is true”, we can only demonstrate that “something is false” or “not false”
😵
Philosophy would then seek to enquire into the proper use of knowledge rather than constantly probe the carious tooth of Truth?
Originally posted by black beetleThe positivism generated by Descartes has generated many a delusion, in my opinion, beginning with the concept of the rational subject.
Who is the one who thinks?
(I have the feeling that the mind thinks -but I know I am not my mind just as I am not any of my other five senses)
😵
Originally posted by Bosse de NageMethinks a philosopher has to describe reality as a unique entity and then explain the necessary causal connection between the many things one experiences😵
Likewise. (We are fine.)
Philosophy would then seek to enquire into the proper use of knowledge rather than constantly probe the carious tooth of Truth?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf a theory corresponds to current facts but is incoherent with earlier knowledge, methinks this earlier knowledge should be discarded. In a mind-only, epiontic, hologramic and chaotic universe, neuroscience detects a thing and Spinoza another. The buffer is anyway the cognizant apparatus, and its biochemical balance is crucial. Our cognizant apparatus is similar, but some are Sufis and some are not; each Story is unique, although all the Stories are Stories😵
Surely neuroscience has made that role redundant?
God is infinite power and everything else is its enclosure, so whether someone tries to prove makes no difference to HIS overall Authenticity. Divine knowledge is abundant in its manifestation in the world and beyond, now who understands it in whatever degree depending on their perception ability that is what projected to the world. Study is a creative method of exploring the universe, it is ever going subject with amendments, corrections and it leads to new horizons of study.
Scholars expound on peoples' belief without accepting their theory but put forward an infinite answer that is the most probable idea about the God. Nobody's theory and whoever tries hard in their life is not comprehensive ideology, but there is much more to understand and in the end GOD is the only ultimate power to explain HIS ideology in totality.
In respect to birth and death and in the good example you give.....death is not a BAD thing! It is not something we prayer against. If the divinity force is within and intangible then in this context the soul is ‘timeless’, non-temporal’, ‘deathless’, ‘not governed by temporal process’, or ‘not subject to birth, decay, and death’ thus merges back with the light of God. So why pray against that?
It’s our love for the world and lack of faith that makes us want more time on the earth. This is mere temptation. Make contentment your ear-rings, humility your begging bowl, and meditation the ashes you apply to your body. Let the
remembrance of death be the patched coat you wear, let the purity of virginity be your way in the world, and let faith in the Lord be your walking stick. See the brotherhood of all mankind as the highest order of Yogis; conquer your own mind, and conquer the world. I bow to Him, I humbly bow. The Primal One, the Pure Light, without beginning, without end. Throughout all the ages, He is One and the Same.
Once we are able to think of God not being contracted or subject to any religion but instead for mankind, can we start to understand the birth/death cycle. Once someone finds god, they no longer need religion!
Originally posted by black beetleThe brain is a part of the body and is used as a means for the soul to unite and control the body. The soul uses the brain like a computer and the disruption of the computer just disrupts the communication to the various parts of the body, which also disrupts communication with the outside world. The death of the body does not wipe out the beliefs held by the soul as you seem to be implying.
Just another case of hypostatization; your mind makes substances and things out of fictions, and it is so conditioned as to make you disposed to utter words like John’s verse 14:16. Memory traces in your brain make you speak of John 14:16; these memory traces and the words of the verse exist, however you speak of the verse as if it was one of the de fac ...[text shortened]... waste; however, this fear does not justify your idea that the verse is the “absolute truth”
😵
Your or my ideas do not justify any absolute truth. The ideas of God and His only begotten Son justifies absolute truth and that is what God's Son, Jesus the Christ, is saying in this verse. 😏
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by RJHindsI am aware of the core meanings and teachings of the Christian religion.
The brain is a part of the body and is used as a means for the soul to unite and control the body. The soul uses the brain like a computer and the disruption of the computer just disrupts the communication to the various parts of the body, which also disrupts communication with the outside world. The death of the body does not wipe out the beliefs held by ...[text shortened]... s the Christ, is saying in this verse. 😏
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
However, leaving aside the fact that the existence of the observer G-d cannot be proven, the point is that there is also no way to prove that the so called "ideas of God and His only begotten Son" are non fictional and, hence, that they do "justify the absolute truth" etc.
😵
Originally posted by black beetleSorry to see that you once again declined to provide concrete examples. I was hoping that they may help me to understand where you're coming from.
Edit: “Specifically what is the "nature of one’s self " that one has an inability to perceive? Does this "nature" objectively exist?”
The nature of one’s self is the nature of one’s mind. This nature exists since the mind is existent;
Edit: “Specifically what is this "reality of our inner world"? Does this "reality" objectively exist?”
Our in There are no truths that are not conventional. Each sentient being is the Truth;
😵
You seem very reluctant to speak in anything but abstraction - an incongruous abstraction at that. Quite frankly, you seem to be on no firmer footing than those who , for example, believe in an afterlife and believe they have something other than faith to justify it. Perhaps “abstraction” is merely a means for hiding from the incongruity.
Hopefully someone will come along who is willing and able to engage in "plain talk".
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBB: Methinks a philosopher has to describe reality as a unique entity and then explain the necessary causal connection between the many things one experiences.
Surely neuroscience has made that role redundant?
You: Surely neuroscience has made that role redundant?
It's a matter of what level of reductionism is useful. As in, we think physics can explain all chemistry, but explanation at the chemical level is adequate for synthesis of organic compounds.
I think evolution has shaped us to thrive (or not) depending on the success we have in living, success that is dependent on the utility of the explanatory and predictive narratives we develop based on our experiences. These narratives can be said to be a product of our neurons and associated processes, including the narratives provided by the philosopher. The philosopher we rely on may be the one inside us, sophomoric as some may be. 😉
Originally posted by black beetleThe existence of God is proved by His creations. There can be no creation without a Creator. The God of the Holy Bible is the only legitimate claimant as the owner and maker of the heavens and the earth. You are without excuse for your non-belief.
I am aware of the core meanings and teachings of the Christian religion.
However, leaving aside the fact that the existence of the observer G-d cannot be proven, the point is that there is also no way to prove that the so called "ideas of God and His only begotten Son" are non fictional and, hence, that they do "justify the absolute truth" etc.
😵