"How did we 'begin'?"

[Received]

Mark, what you call life experience is precisely what I would say is mediated by intuition. What do you mean by life experience?

Radical skepticism doesn't ask us to abandon anything. It starts off a little more innocently than that. It suspends judgement of the things other people take for granted, and asks for a justification for such things. Saying life experience justifies it begs the question -- life experience is precisely what is being questioned.

 

[Paradoxum]

First of all, I want to ask "what is the motive behind your doubt?" Why do you not accept this 'belief' as already self-evident and the absolute default stance to take when it comes to Reality?

Because it isn't evident to me or most people. I doubt it because there is no reason to believe it.

I believe that, if you search yourself, you will find out that your belief that this is not true is actually a projection, foisted upon you by your mind. This is in an effort to preserve your own prized individuality. That is my whole basic outlook on this matter. Skepticism is not the default position because it is already an attempt, a project, at covering over the real truth.....

Well I can see how there be no 'I' who exists. All my thoughts may be determined just like all physical actions.

How does one justify empiricism? We rationally recognize the need for evidence to back up claims about reality. This is not based on "intuition", since it is life experience that shows us this need. Life experience is overwhelmingly on the side of the view that we are human individuals living human lives.

But if we were in the Matrix we would also think there was overwhelming evidence on side of us being human individual living human lives. How are we to tell the difference between being in the primary world or in a simulation? We can't. Both times we would have life experience that tells us that we are in the primary world.

Radical skepticism asks us to abandon any means we might have to prove anything, even life experience. It suggests that we "might" be living in the Matrix (just for example) without offering any proof whatsoever, even that based on life experience. It may be dismissed from the outset because it doesn't offer anything to begin with. Its claims are empty and void.

Life experience doesn't speak in favour of either. The reason we might be in the Matrix is that the world would appear exactly the same if we were. The idea that this is the primary world can be dismissed as empty and void also. Practically it makes no sense to do this though.

Since radical skepticism has no standards of proof, it may be dismissed without proof. The default position is that we are human individuals living human lives. Anything else is philosophy gone insane.

Well that is what must act on, just as we must act as if we are free or as if a cause causes an effect. It doesn't mean these things are true.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But if we were in the Matrix

Do you have any evidence that we are in the Matrix? If not, why should I take that speculation any more seriously than the claim that leprechauns exist?

Such speculations without evidence and completely empty and void. They have no weight. They don't deserve even a second's consideration. They are not philosophy, but rather a kind of anti-philosophy -- a "love of ignorance".

And that is my last word on that. There's no point in debating such things.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WonderBeat]

My issue with skepticism that denies the Self is this: it is not natural to who we are, so should be abandoned outright.

Think about it, you don't humor a 20-something who makes crank-call. You hang up on him. Just so, when an unnatural philosophy is espoused which just intuitively goes against who we are, it should be dropped.

Sure, it doesn't have to be censored. But it ought to be mocked, ridiculed, laughed at, and in the end critiqued heavily.

 

[quatona]

Oh, it's totally fair.

I don´t think so. Empiricism and radical skepticism are completely different frames of references and as such cannot justify themselves by each other´s criteria.

How does one justify empiricism?

Philosophically? You can´t - without the argument being self-referential and circular.
The strongest argument for it, imo, is pragmatic: "It´s useful".
[/quote] We rationally recognize the need for evidence to back up claims about reality.[/quote]
Who is "we" in this statement? I doubt that a radical skepticist would agree with it.

This is not based on "intuition", since it is life experience that shows us this need. Life experience is overwhelmingly on the side of the view that we are human individuals living human lives.

"Life experience" isnt a valid epistemological criterium - unless you have already accepted empiricism as the valid frame of reference. See above: circularity, self-reference.

Radical skepticism asks us to abandon any means we might have to prove anything, even life experience.

Which makes total sense from within skepticism, just like asking for evidence makes total sense with empiricism.

It suggests that we "might" be living in the Matrix (just for example) without offering any proof whatsoever, even that based on life experience.

It may be dismissed from the outset because it doesn't offer anything to begin with. Its claims are empty and void.

I may be wrong but I don´t think such positive claims or attempts at explanations are actually reconcilable with radical skepticism. Personally, I would meet such positive claims with at least the same amount of skepticism that I meet empiricism with.

Since radical skepticism has no standards of proof, it may be dismissed without proof.

In the same way that empiricism can only justify itself by the very standards it has declared valid itself.

The default position is that we are human individuals living human lives.

Other than merely claiming it, could you explain what exactly earned it the status of the default position, in your opinion?

Anything else is philosophy gone insane.

I don´t think such statements help the discussion, nor do they strengthen your position.

 

[Dave Ellis]

My issue with skepticism that denies the Self is this: it is not natural to who we are, so should be abandoned outright.

Think about it, you don't humor a 20-something who makes crank-call. You hang up on him. Just so, when an unnatural philosophy is espoused which just intuitively goes against who we are, it should be dropped.

Sure, it doesn't have to be censored. But it ought to be mocked, ridiculed, laughed at, and in the end critiqued heavily.

It's only ridiculed because it's ridiculous.

The base contradiction in your philosophy is that we were in a state of perfect oneness, then we wondered what it would like to be individuals which launched us into the "dream state" we're in now.

The problem is, if we were in a perfect state of oneness, the concept of individuality would be foreign to us.

If we can identify as individuals within the perfect state of oneness, then we are not all one. By necessity divisions of some sort must exist for us to identify what an individual is. That means the base premise of oneness is contradictory, and therefore impossible.

 

[WonderBeat]

If we can identify as individuals within the perfect state of oneness, then we are not all one. By necessity divisions of some sort must exist for us to identify what an individual is. That means the base premise of oneness is contradictory, and therefore impossible.

There IS no individuality! There NEVER was. There was never ANY division. Ergo, the ILLUSION which is just a projection.....

So, your point is moot. You are right, individuality is impossible. That's why it doesn't exist.

 

[Paradoxum]

Do you have any evidence that we are in the Matrix? If not, why should I take that speculation any more seriously than the claim that leprechauns exist?

I would say because the claims are different. It appears that there are no leprechauns, and if they are magical it would seem to go against science. Also it doesn't matter if Leprechauns exist. The more important thing would be if magic or 'Luck' exist or if they could exist. I'm sure they are valid questions.

On the other hand there is no reason we should be living in the primary universe or an illusion. It seems the reason we would say we are in the primary universe would be the choice to take things at face value. It seems like we are in the prime universe, but it is possible that we are a creation like the matrix.

Such speculations without evidence and completely empty and void. They have no weight. They don't deserve even a second's consideration. They are not philosophy, but rather a kind of anti-philosophy -- a "love of ignorance".

Descartes speculated that the world could be a dream or the creation of an evil demon/genius. Kant said that we live in the sensible world and the world of the intelligible and on this he based his defence of free will. There isn't any evidence for these things except doubt and reasoned argument. Nevertheless I would say these things are philosophy.

And that is my last word on that. There's no point in debating such things.

I felt like replying anyway.

My issue with skepticism that denies the Self is this: it is not natural to who we are, so should be abandoned outright.

Well you need to prove this or at least explain better what this means.

Think about it, you don't humor a 20-something who makes crank-call. You hang up on him. Just so, when an unnatural philosophy is espoused which just intuitively goes against who we are, it should be dropped.

This is not a proper analogy.

It goes against who we are to say that we have no free will, but it is a legitimate point and probably true. Many things may go against intuition and nevertheless be true.

There IS no individuality! There NEVER was. There was never ANY division. Ergo, the ILLUSION which is just a projection.....

So, your point is moot. You are right, individuality is impossible. That's why it doesn't exist.

You need to give some sort of argument for this. Otherwise all you are doing is saying it is true without reason or evidence.

 

[Going Merry]

My hamburger probably doesn't know what oneness is. I really hope this is all from the same cow... Actually I think I convinced my self to stop eating meat like this...

 

[Dave Ellis]

There IS no individuality! There NEVER was. There was never ANY division. Ergo, the ILLUSION which is just a projection.....

So, your point is moot. You are right, individuality is impossible. That's why it doesn't exist.

You're missing the point.... the point is:

1. In your worldview, we were once upon a time part of a perfect oneness (technically we still are, but we were fully aware of it then).

2. In this state of oneness, we had a thought of what it would be like to be individuals, and this caused us to enter a dream-like state which we now perceive as "the real world"

3. If we were part of a perfect oneness, there would only be one mind. Since there is only one mind, it already is an individual. It would not require being put into a dream-like state to experience individuality, it already possesses it.

4. If you disagree with the above point and claim we all had our own voices within this oneness, then it is not a oneness... it's a collection of individual voices. If there is more than one voice, then it is not perfectly one.

5. Either way, a perfect oneness is impossible. Even if you are right, and all this is one big elaborate illusion, then your premise still contradicts itself.

 

[WonderBeat]

3. If we were part of a perfect oneness, there would only be one mind. Since there is only one mind, it already is an individual. It would not require being put into a dream-like state to experience individuality, it already possesses it.

None of our individual egos is the Self.... Yes, you are right the Self is absolutely one and without second.... BUT the Self is INCLUSIVE of all our "little voices" so it cannot be an individual because an individual is necessarily EXCLUSIVE............

 

[Dave Ellis]

None of our individual egos is the Self.... Yes, you are right the Self is absolutely one and without second.... BUT the Self is INCLUSIVE of all our "little voices" so it cannot be an individual because an individual is necessarily EXCLUSIVE............

The problem is, if there are plenty of little voices, many in contradiction with each other, then it is not a perfect oneness. A perfect oneness must have one voice.

 

[sk8Joyful]

The problem is, if there are plenty of little voices, many in contradiction with each other,
then it is not a perfect oneness. A perfect oneness must have one voice.

re: "A perfect oneness must have one voice". Good one!
Exactly,
therefore none of that: http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf
nor
Abortion statistics because when every part of us speaks in Unison-with-God,
then all His children are allowed to Birth their "voice".

 

[WonderBeat]

The problem is, if there are plenty of little voices, many in contradiction with each other, then it is not a perfect oneness. A perfect oneness must have one voice.

There is a name for this: ACHINTYA-BHEDA-ABHEDA-TATTVA (INCONCEIVABLE SIMULTANEOUS ONENESS AND DIFFERENCE!).

Kula Shaker made a wonderful song about it, I highly recommend that you listen to it:

Kula Shaker - Tattva - YouTube

 

[Dave Ellis]

re: "A perfect oneness must have one voice". Good one!
Exactly,
therefore none of that: http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf
nor
Abortion statistics because when every part of us speaks in Unison-with-God,
then all His children are allowed to Birth their "voice".

What does this have to do with abortion?

 

[Dave Ellis]

There is a name for this: ACHINTYA-BHEDA-ABHEDA-TATTVA (INCONCEIVABLE SIMULTANEOUS ONENESS AND DIFFERENCE!).

Kula Shaker made a wonderful song about it, I highly recommend that you listen to it:

Kula Shaker - Tattva - YouTube

What the hell does a song have to do with anything? You are arguing a self-contradictory point.

 

[sk8Joyful]

What does this have to do with abortion?

Plenty Particularly in the 2nd. site, where it is clearly demonstrated via statistics,
that while it is claimed that abortions are done to 'save the mom'
the Truth of the matter is, the overwhelming majority of Unborns are murdered for mom's convenience.

iow, one part/voice inside herself KNOWS she's committing murder.
But one part/voice inside herself WANTS what she wants more, & this part/voice of her wins.

Or she assumes she won. - Little do they know,
that Justice will prevail, at some time in her life.

It is FAR better all the way around, to allow ONEness

 

[WonderBeat]

What the hell does a song have to do with anything? You are arguing a self-contradictory point.

If you experienced it, it wouldn't seem so self-contradictory.......it is only using the analytical mind that contradictions appear/proliferate/lock you into one SIMPLE way of viewing.....

 

[Dave Ellis]

Plenty Particularly in the 2nd. site, where it is clearly demonstrated via statistics,
that while it is claimed that abortions are done to 'save the mom'
the Truth of the matter is, the overwhelming majority of Unborns are murdered for mom's convenience.

iow, one part/voice inside herself KNOWS she's committing murder.
But one part/voice inside herself WANTS what she wants more, & this part/voice of her wins.

Or she assumes she won. - Little do they know,
that Justice will prevail, at some time in her life.

It is FAR better all the way around, to allow ONEness

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[sk8Joyful]

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

it doesn't? -
the Topic is: "How did we begin?" - let's Allow everyone to begin right?