Video (Hagfish: I was in such a hurry, I forgot my jacket.) Links: YouTube Twitter Rumble It still feels like I’m rushing things, but the videos are already a half hour. I can’t see your faces so it’s difficult to tell. Let me know about the tempo. I also said I could not think of a homework in the video. Well, I have.
One observation that has helped me sort out at least some of the issues is that, stripped bare, there are just three distinct phases of all reality: fact, idea and relation — fact and relation comprising, if you will, the north and south poles that are unified by idea (meaning). You might characterize them as science, philosophy and religion (this latter term referring to the inner experience of contact with divinity, reality, rather than the doctrines that have been formulated to explain such experiences), or as thing, meaning and value (matter, mind and spirit).
The concept of “truth” is naturally a bit muddled, since realities from each of the poles are perceived and evaluated by mind. But an important disjunction may perhaps be illustrated, albeit somewhat crudely, by the distinction between that which sets you free and that which doesn’t (necessarily).
1+1=2 is “true” in a certain, very limited, sense, but can hardly be said to set one free. On the other hand, the truth that you are, and every other individual is, greatly loved and cherished by the Infinite and Eternal Creator and Upholder of all of reality and whose spiritual forces labor for your real (as opposed to perceived) eternal wellbeing, once fully understood, does most assuredly set you free in the domain of value (spirit), irrespective of whatever condition or degree of slavery you might find your material self in.
Mathew Crawford argues that the purpose of the "occult" is to cause mass confusion. The politicization of everything also causes mass confusion.
Although I consider myself a midwit, I judge –and I reckon I judge correctly,– that these two tactics (occultism and politicization) are branches of the same tree, but not the same branch.
I further say that the people who cannot be confused with one tactic are very likely wide open to be conquered by the other one.
And it is depressing to increase knowledge of any of these two, but it's even more depressing to be always at the mercy of the obsessions of the occultists and the politicizers. Although it's bitter, it's better to learn than to learn not.
A much quicker way to arrive at truth, at its nature that is, than to waddle back through the convolutions of science and philosophy, is to go straight back to Parmenides, Herakleitos and their contemporaries. Between Plato and the Platonists, between Aristotle and the Aristotelians, much clarity was lost. Aletheia got mixed up with veritas and 'veritas' (polluted old ***) landed us in the church (God help us all). Reading Heidegger has finally made me see why philosophy as we know it is useless except to figure out the pickles we got ourselves into.
Hot off the press: No link between COVID vaccine, cardiac arrest in young people, new CDC study finds! So in this study the CDC used it's own VAERS data (already manipulated) and death certificates(they told Doctors to not put vaccine injury on death certificates) to prove this nonsense!
I appreciate this post, but I also have to say there is a reason why I am an engineer and not a philosopher or a mathematician, I simply don't have the patience for all this arcane abstract philosophy jargon. But I will keep following your plan, I am more interested when we get to symbols and maths.
This is a technicality related to Minute 18:00-19:00 in the video, but the Peano axiom that specifically says that successors of natural numbers are, themselves, natural numbers -- is a fully-valid inductive inference. You and I may bicker about terms, but I argue that inductive inferences, when fully-valid, constitute "proof."
The so-called "Problem of Induction" rests on an original thinking mistake (the "contingency-of-the-world" doctrine) which got popularized by Hume. In reality, there isn't infinite possibility over the causes of things. But if you mistakenly think that anything could cause anything, then you won't recognize fully-valid inductive inferences.
Once causal possibility is recognized as being finite (i.e., only certain things can ever be the cause of certain effects) -- bringing your thinking into alignment with reality -- then induction can be used in order "prove" things.
Example: It's possible to "prove" that every flea has less mass than every elephant -- without physically examining all fleas and all elephants (and even without physically examining even 1% of them).
Very interesting discussion.
One observation that has helped me sort out at least some of the issues is that, stripped bare, there are just three distinct phases of all reality: fact, idea and relation — fact and relation comprising, if you will, the north and south poles that are unified by idea (meaning). You might characterize them as science, philosophy and religion (this latter term referring to the inner experience of contact with divinity, reality, rather than the doctrines that have been formulated to explain such experiences), or as thing, meaning and value (matter, mind and spirit).
The concept of “truth” is naturally a bit muddled, since realities from each of the poles are perceived and evaluated by mind. But an important disjunction may perhaps be illustrated, albeit somewhat crudely, by the distinction between that which sets you free and that which doesn’t (necessarily).
1+1=2 is “true” in a certain, very limited, sense, but can hardly be said to set one free. On the other hand, the truth that you are, and every other individual is, greatly loved and cherished by the Infinite and Eternal Creator and Upholder of all of reality and whose spiritual forces labor for your real (as opposed to perceived) eternal wellbeing, once fully understood, does most assuredly set you free in the domain of value (spirit), irrespective of whatever condition or degree of slavery you might find your material self in.
Mathew Crawford argues that the purpose of the "occult" is to cause mass confusion. The politicization of everything also causes mass confusion.
Although I consider myself a midwit, I judge –and I reckon I judge correctly,– that these two tactics (occultism and politicization) are branches of the same tree, but not the same branch.
I further say that the people who cannot be confused with one tactic are very likely wide open to be conquered by the other one.
And it is depressing to increase knowledge of any of these two, but it's even more depressing to be always at the mercy of the obsessions of the occultists and the politicizers. Although it's bitter, it's better to learn than to learn not.
A much quicker way to arrive at truth, at its nature that is, than to waddle back through the convolutions of science and philosophy, is to go straight back to Parmenides, Herakleitos and their contemporaries. Between Plato and the Platonists, between Aristotle and the Aristotelians, much clarity was lost. Aletheia got mixed up with veritas and 'veritas' (polluted old ***) landed us in the church (God help us all). Reading Heidegger has finally made me see why philosophy as we know it is useless except to figure out the pickles we got ourselves into.
Hot off the press: No link between COVID vaccine, cardiac arrest in young people, new CDC study finds! So in this study the CDC used it's own VAERS data (already manipulated) and death certificates(they told Doctors to not put vaccine injury on death certificates) to prove this nonsense!
I appreciate this post, but I also have to say there is a reason why I am an engineer and not a philosopher or a mathematician, I simply don't have the patience for all this arcane abstract philosophy jargon. But I will keep following your plan, I am more interested when we get to symbols and maths.
Lecture is very clear
Thanks for posting excerpt from your book too--enjoyable to read as well as educational
Briggs,
This is a technicality related to Minute 18:00-19:00 in the video, but the Peano axiom that specifically says that successors of natural numbers are, themselves, natural numbers -- is a fully-valid inductive inference. You and I may bicker about terms, but I argue that inductive inferences, when fully-valid, constitute "proof."
The so-called "Problem of Induction" rests on an original thinking mistake (the "contingency-of-the-world" doctrine) which got popularized by Hume. In reality, there isn't infinite possibility over the causes of things. But if you mistakenly think that anything could cause anything, then you won't recognize fully-valid inductive inferences.
Once causal possibility is recognized as being finite (i.e., only certain things can ever be the cause of certain effects) -- bringing your thinking into alignment with reality -- then induction can be used in order "prove" things.
Example: It's possible to "prove" that every flea has less mass than every elephant -- without physically examining all fleas and all elephants (and even without physically examining even 1% of them).