|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 19, 2020 7:46:47 GMT
Philosophy = Words Alchemistry
Indeed, what do we see almost all the time reading some philosophy works? Nothing, except for painly high complexity of it. Every single work that pretends to be a philosophy work contains tons of those "difficult to comprehend word-constructions".
If one may say "philosophy is crap" he would be false even saying true... oh oh... how is it possible you may ask?
Philosophers are the ones who instead of mastering their scientific skills master their speech techniques making it be absolutely hard to understand straightly. And what is the most interesting, you know, they claim their texts have no meaning while being urgently important to humanity and each of its member, and also their works are not the masterpieces of reasoning...
So, practicing in word alchemistry makes your philosophy be more perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 19, 2020 20:36:46 GMT
Philosophy = Words Alchemistry Indeed, what do we see almost all the time reading some philosophy works? Nothing, except for painly high complexity of it. Every single work that pretends to be a philosophy work contains tons of those "difficult to comprehend word-constructions". If one may say "philosophy is crap" he would be false even saying true... oh oh... how is it possible you may ask? Philosophers are the ones who instead of mastering their scientific skills master their speech techniques making it be absolutely hard to understand straightly. And what is the most interesting, you know, they claim their texts have no meaning while being urgently important to humanity and each of its member, and also their works are not the masterpieces of reasoning... So, practicing in word alchemistry makes your philosophy be more perfect. Philosophy is just words, but words are everything. If the philosopher cannot break down a complicated text, either his own or someone else's, then he has not mastered the art. |
|
KGrim
Full Member
Coming back to Arktos...for a little while anyways...just to see how things are doing.
Posts: 442
Likes: 238
Country: USA
Region: South East
Location: East Texas
Ancestry: Scotch-Irish
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Hero: Jesus
Age: 33 soon to be 34
Philosophy: Hesychasm
|
Post by KGrim on Jan 19, 2020 20:46:37 GMT
I thought it was Rhetoricians that were the word Alchemists.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jan 19, 2020 23:38:06 GMT
Descartes placed philosophy in the context of geometry.
One of the problems is that many then omit the qualitative
philosophical context that contains the geometry on the
basis that philosophy is worthless word-salad.
But no concept of engineering or science can stand
outside of ethics. And theological questions are the
logical basis of all robust ethical systems.
These theistic words (hermeneutics) are all embedded
in structures of logic, or logos. But the scientists
have lost these roots, and are just an expression of
blunt material ego. When the basis for that has lost
its ethical/logical grounding, the society or the
individual lashes out as aggressors: war.
The result is disaster. But when philosophy itself
degenerates into ego-bashing and sophistry,
that is the seed of that disaster.
It boils down to your own inner psychological journey
and the decision to act out of ego or out of honest
humility. Humility itself can backfire if you
misinterpret humility as simply giving ground to the
ego of others.
Courage as much as logic, are equal partners
in the pursuit of the ideal.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 20, 2020 2:31:29 GMT
It really is all alchemy at the end of the day. Break one thing down to many then resynthesize it back to one....its triadic.
Absolute Unity
Relative Multiplicity
Synthetic Unity
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 24, 2020 19:39:17 GMT
Philosophy = Words Alchemistry Indeed, what do we see almost all the time reading some philosophy works? Nothing, except for painly high complexity of it. Every single work that pretends to be a philosophy work contains tons of those "difficult to comprehend word-constructions". If one may say "philosophy is crap" he would be false even saying true... oh oh... how is it possible you may ask? Philosophers are the ones who instead of mastering their scientific skills master their speech techniques making it be absolutely hard to understand straightly. And what is the most interesting, you know, they claim their texts have no meaning while being urgently important to humanity and each of its member, and also their works are not the masterpieces of reasoning... So, practicing in word alchemistry makes your philosophy be more perfect. Philosophy is just words, but words are everything. If the philosopher cannot break down a complicated text, either his own or someone else's, then he has not mastered the art. This determination is wonderful. If the words are everything, then 'everything' is just a word. About lack of mastering of solving complicated text - it is true. Especially for me. This can be brilliantly seen every next time when I can't deal with your texts. And complication of anything, as I think, is something like... right, true conditions for philosophy. Without difficulties philosophy seems to be dead. I mean any complication suits philosophy, hides it, but behind all those nutshells is what... is what philosophy is arising like the phoenix from ashes. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 24, 2020 19:48:03 GMT
I thought it was Rhetoricians that were the word Alchemists. You know, there was a topic about this some time ago. Perhaps, a half a year ago. It's not easy for me to start discussing the plot about whether philosophy is just a matter of rhetoric again, because the last time neinex was very angry not only at me. And I'm sure that his angriness were fair as long as texts of him being not easy to read still have usefulness and rightfulness. Yes, I think you're completely right here, because the Rhetoricians were keepers of the art of the words Alchemistry. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 24, 2020 19:55:37 GMT
Descartes placed philosophy in the context of geometry. One of the problems is that many then omit the qualitative philosophical context that contains the geometry on the basis that philosophy is worthless word-salad. But no concept of engineering or science can stand outside of ethics. And theological questions are the logical basis of all robust ethical systems. These theistic words (hermeneutics) are all embedded in structures of logic, or logos. But the scientists have lost these roots, and are just an expression of blunt material ego. When the basis for that has lost its ethical/logical grounding, the society or the individual lashes out as aggressors: war. The result is disaster. But when philosophy itself degenerates into ego-bashing and sophistry, that is the seed of that disaster. It boils down to your own inner psychological journey and the decision to act out of ego or out of honest humility. Humility itself can backfire if you misinterpret humility as simply giving ground to the ego of others. Courage as much as logic, are equal partners in the pursuit of the ideal. I'd use a little argument toward Descartes's idea: giving up solving philosophical discussions Descartes offered his method, and this, at least, moved the Natural Philosophy from its previous place to science snoopings. Yes, I agree also about the important role of ethical i.e. life problems over scientific ones. As for me this ought to be seen as something obvious. A matter about "science" tells us something isn't less strange as "something" UFO-shaped would tell us. Ideal structures are silent. However, the science isn't just the battlefield, this is a motherland too. We were born because of hard and long investigations of the scientists all over the world. They researches and works helped us to be alive and well. Without their help - we're dead. The science is our last resort. This is the future, this is the present, and this is everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 24, 2020 20:02:36 GMT
It really is all alchemy at the end of the day. Break one thing down to many then resynthesize it back to one....its triadic. Absolute Unity Relative Multiplicity Synthetic Unity A man had been questioned me till I start worrying if I was sane. He asked about relations between some compositions... I don't want to retell all this, I just want to reask his very first question: why do you think exactly "triadic" (or "quadric", "pentatic" - btw, pentagram was very famous during the beginning of the Dark Ages, so why not pentatic?) structure of the reality? Isn't some transpositions of "triadic" to everything is nothing, but transpositions "something" that you've been mentioning, to everything? If you've got acquainted with "triadic" before anything of talking about this, you can't be sure about this as a priori notion. Extrapolation of a posteriori terms to everything lacks of solid argumentation. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 24, 2020 23:31:40 GMT
It really is all alchemy at the end of the day. Break one thing down to many then resynthesize it back to one....its triadic. Absolute Unity Relative Multiplicity Synthetic Unity A man had been questioned me till I start worrying if I was sane. He asked about relations between some compositions... I don't want to retell all this, I just want to reask his very first question: why do you think exactly "triadic" (or "quadric", "pentatic" - btw, pentagram was very famous during the beginning of the Dark Ages, so why not pentatic?) structure of the reality? Isn't some transpositions of "triadic" to everything is nothing, but transpositions "something" that you've been mentioning, to everything? If you've got acquainted with "triadic" before anything of talking about this, you can't be sure about this as a priori notion. Extrapolation of a posteriori terms to everything lacks of solid argumentation. Truth is absolute, relative and synthetic. As this trinity it is also assumed, linear and circular, another trinity. All reality as expressed dualistically, exists as a movement between opposites with this movement being the third element. The apriori nature is space. The division of 1 point into 2 points exists as 3 total points. We can learn about the triad from this. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jan 25, 2020 15:09:39 GMT
Descartes placed philosophy in the context of geometry. One of the problems is that many then omit the qualitative philosophical context that contains the geometry on the basis that philosophy is worthless word-salad. But no concept of engineering or science can stand outside of ethics. And theological questions are the logical basis of all robust ethical systems. These theistic words (hermeneutics) are all embedded in structures of logic, or logos. But the scientists have lost these roots, and are just an expression of blunt material ego. When the basis for that has lost its ethical/logical grounding, the society or the individual lashes out as aggressors: war. The result is disaster. But when philosophy itself degenerates into ego-bashing and sophistry, that is the seed of that disaster. It boils down to your own inner psychological journey and the decision to act out of ego or out of honest humility. Humility itself can backfire if you misinterpret humility as simply giving ground to the ego of others. Courage as much as logic, are equal partners in the pursuit of the ideal. I'd use a little argument toward Descartes's idea: giving up solving philosophical discussions Descartes offered his method, and this, at least, moved the Natural Philosophy from its previous place to science snoopings. Yes, I agree also about the important role of ethical i.e. life problems over scientific ones. As for me this ought to be seen as something obvious. A matter about "science" tells us something isn't less strange as "something" UFO-shaped would tell us. Ideal structures are silent. However, the science isn't just the battlefield, this is a motherland too. We were born because of hard and long investigations of the scientists all over the world. They researches and works helped us to be alive and well. Without their help - we're dead. The science is our last resort. This is the future, this is the present, and this is everything. So much of what is the body of 'science' is simply appropriated from outside its confines, and then rubber-stamped by the institution which then takes claim for it. A classic example is Edison's theft of Tesla's discovery. The airplane was not a scientific discovery, it was that of ordinary bicycle builders. Even powerful drugs like painkillers which the scientific community claims to own originated so far back in history that we simply do not know their origins. Poppies (opiates) were common-place on the battlefields of Hannibal, and the very concept of the Hospital was the invention of Christian Knights - not scientists. Science then disavows the very essence of its most powerful school. Should society lose the spiritual battle, knowledge will degenerate into its antithesis. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 25, 2020 15:40:33 GMT
A man had been questioned me till I start worrying if I was sane. He asked about relations between some compositions... I don't want to retell all this, I just want to reask his very first question: why do you think exactly "triadic" (or "quadric", "pentatic" - btw, pentagram was very famous during the beginning of the Dark Ages, so why not pentatic?) structure of the reality? Isn't some transpositions of "triadic" to everything is nothing, but transpositions "something" that you've been mentioning, to everything? If you've got acquainted with "triadic" before anything of talking about this, you can't be sure about this as a priori notion. Extrapolation of a posteriori terms to everything lacks of solid argumentation. Truth is absolute, relative and synthetic. As this trinity it is also assumed, linear and circular, another trinity. All reality as expressed dualistically, exists as a movement between opposites with this movement being the third element. The apriori nature is space. The division of 1 point into 2 points exists as 3 total points. We can learn about the triad from this. Okay, it sounds. You know, I feel intuitively that there must be the way of neutrality, or, perhaps I should say, the middle, the most balanced path. Even the Elders said "nothing above" (or "μηδεν αγαν"), and still didn't loose the hope that they were telling us the truth. All the philosophers after them were being involved into different and curved discussions. And ones proliferated into vary branches still circling around those principles. I also fee intuitively that what you've been telling me is something really close to it, but I can't find the right link, or maybe I am not sure I see the link, or what I see is the link. I don't remember where I was reading it, but the Elders also said about the main three principles of speaking. Hmm... a) to speak only that you're thinking; b) do not speak what you're not thinking; c) and to think about what you're speaking. ..Something like that. And there's also an element of rationality that has to be passed. The logic of "triads" has, I suppose, some blanks. Let's just say that one being divide by two gives us three. Is this so? Why not five? Dividing one half from another we achieve two blank spaces too. If what's being divided is "nothing" or "anything that we don't care about what it is" (ding an sich, for instance) we will achieve exactly five, or, maybe, four things. If the area where the operation of dividing is in progress is one deity, then its content (as one) that is being dividing by two will give us four. Also the line or the border that gluing two sides of what is being divided - what is with it? How from a line we can receive two more? Moreover, variations of deities that come from the operation of dividing may have not a stable number. All together, this allows us to be not so sure about the number three, however, it doesn't deny this. Instead of being so skeptical I'd like to think that "triads" are exactly what you're saying, and they continue to appear every time we're having some deal with metaphysics. But my way is a tiny different. I think that "triads" is in presuppositions of our thinking. Is what we might call "semantic truth", or simply "semantics". There's another way, that is close to this to is transcendental forms of thinking. But for my opinion is really close to semantic understanding. The ultimate borders we're trying to think and to understand might be what we're calling "ideas" or "notions". Well, I wouldn't insist on the words of mine. However, is the way I'm trying to make a leap to the triadic view. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 25, 2020 16:01:34 GMT
I'd use a little argument toward Descartes's idea: giving up solving philosophical discussions Descartes offered his method, and this, at least, moved the Natural Philosophy from its previous place to science snoopings. Yes, I agree also about the important role of ethical i.e. life problems over scientific ones. As for me this ought to be seen as something obvious. A matter about "science" tells us something isn't less strange as "something" UFO-shaped would tell us. Ideal structures are silent. However, the science isn't just the battlefield, this is a motherland too. We were born because of hard and long investigations of the scientists all over the world. They researches and works helped us to be alive and well. Without their help - we're dead. The science is our last resort. This is the future, this is the present, and this is everything. So much of what is the body of 'science' is simply appropriated from outside its confines, and then rubber-stamped by the institution which then takes claim for it. A classic example is Edison's theft of Tesla's discovery. The airplane was not a scientific discovery, it was that of ordinary bicycle builders. Even powerful drugs like painkillers which the scientific community claims to own originated so far back in history that we simply do not know their origins. Poppies (opiates) were common-place on the battlefields of Hannibal, and the very concept of the Hospital was the invention of Christian Knights - not scientists. Science then disavows the very essence of its most powerful school. Should society lose the spiritual battle, knowledge will degenerate into its antithesis. I support your arguments, John. About mimicry and copying of each other - this is for sure. And we have to add that all the people are stealing their ideas from our surroundings, from the Nature. Surely, you're right saying that some of inventions, directly about an idea of the Hospitals, or some sedative drugs. Yes, this is true. (By the way, Russell in his "A History of Western Philosophy" said that the very famous argument of Des Cartesium had already been used in Augustine's "Confessions".) ... Nonetheless, science can't be viewed just as a plot of someone. This is a tool. Japs used planes to violent suicide acts, but the USA missiles stopped them. Science was using against science. The same story is almost in every conflict; Hannibal's strategy was being used by the other warriors during later conflicts. Powder that is supposedly was invented in China is using almost everywhere. The gold-miners used it in explosions. My opinion is that science is being under transformation just like the Christian Church was. The first Christians were lonely and unprotected till the bill of Constantine was published and put them from the misery, and put their chains off. I think that science is needed to be reformed exactly as it was withing Christianity. Even philosophy is needed it too, 'cause its thesaurus has been spoiled by too specific and academic sharp language. I, personally, still have a hope, that the methods of reformations must be soft and not revolutionary. Any violent acts bring another evil to our life, and it's hard to accept such ways. So, indeed there is the science's institution confinement, and the science should not loose a devotion of society. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jan 26, 2020 19:36:56 GMT
Eugene 2.0The issue is really about the difference between science as a method and science as an institution. We need to be clinical in separating those two ideas. They are drifting more and more apart since their greatest achievements together in the 1800's. There are corrupt people that make plots, sadly, and they rely on pacifism to get away with lies. Of course nobody is immune to corruption and any idea can be used for evil, that is why the highest imperative is always ethics before all else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 27, 2020 19:48:37 GMT
Eugene 2.0 The issue is really about the difference between science as a method and science as an institution. We need to be clinical in separating those two ideas. They are drifting more and more apart since their greatest achievements together in the 1800's. There are corrupt people that make plots, sadly, and they rely on pacifism to get away with lies. Of course nobody is immune to corruption and any idea can be used for evil, that is why the highest imperative is always ethics before all else. It would be really interesting for me to ask you, what do you think about home education? This matter seems to me important, because if the institutional science is lying, or, at least, we can't trust them completely, where should we take our knowledge? Also, what do you think about discursive and non- -discursive knowledge? I mean that non-discursive one requires using of a private language and about the last one there are still some speculations are holding. Usually, for to make our knowledge about the subject to be objective we're discussing with each other (exactly as what we're doing now). If we discursive techniques were chosen, then little groups of people would need to speak with each for not to collect some data in a correct way only, but to make theories which were build on data be much representative and profound. |
|
