3 ms·

ooh third time I see this in 2 years, I recommend part 2: The Ghost Not if the pseudo-psychology turned you off. https://www.datapacrat.com/Opinion/Reciprocal

ooh third time I see this in 2 years, I recommend part 2: The Ghost Not if the pseudo-psychology turned you off. https://www.datapacrat.com/Opinion/Reciprocality/r2/index.html https://www.datapacrat.com/Opinion/Reciprocality/r2/index.ht... it pushed me to spend a little time on the question, hope you appreciate my pseudo-philosophical prose :p "Time being of the essence, consider this: by which miracle do you live forward, not knowing whether the next five seconds are to be your last? A trust has been set, and until next time, all will be well. We might consider this the Original Sin, the natural unwillingness to envision a World where one cannot ever know (Death being somewhat final as far as we currently think it is). And thus a negation already inhabits our minds, the Ghost Not. Without it there is no point to knowing because you’d never be able to make sense of it, the World would be too big and it would be too easy to just say “we’ll never know for sure, I could die before I find out”. Yet armed with this negation we built things, some were poised to end earlier than planned while others thrived on disbelief. One could argue it is the only available tool, and as such we should have learned by now that this tool has terrible Flaws. We are limited by the size of the blackboard on which we work, and we can only write what we can make sense of. Therefore separating Objectivism and Subjectivism, cutting us from a “true” way to assess Value. The Ghost Not is the consequence of having to expand energy to get closer to Truth, how much work we are willing to go through to finally know if we were right. The flaws of the Ghost Not are severe, nonetheless its efficacy cannot be doubted. Its methods are at least 99.99%(how did we reach this result?) better than magic in broad spectra of real conditions. We can by definition never reach Truth, but we could get indistinguishably close to it. A fundamental axiom can be delivered at this point: Truth is at least worth the time and energy it takes to get to it minus one single moment of usefulness. "

krageon 5y ago
The problem I have with this is the same one I have with a lot of philosophical texts: It's a nice concept, kudos to you for coming up with it. Hundreds of such concepts exist and they all sound good to their authors. What is the point of coming up with them other than the kind of satisfaction children also know when they make up stories about the world around them?
- Nemrod67 5y ago
  yep, that's in theory what separates cranks from science :p IMHO the first step would be to identify values, parameters and their relationship. That's where science is done, but it is hard not to step in crank territory. It's not that original either, Gettier cases and Gödel's incompleteness are intertwined with these subjects. All it needs is some rigor and maybe something can come out of it. I posit this something is missing if we are to advance our Civilization further. EDIT: the poster of the link also posted a link about some Heidegger's "Question concerning Technology", seems like I've been missing some Heidegger as a foundation/inspiration http://www.english.hawaii.edu/criticalink/heidegger/index.html http://www.english.hawaii.edu/criticalink/heidegger/index.ht...
- steve_adams_86 5y ago
  Can you point to any philosophical texts you know of which don’t have this problem?
  - krageon 5y ago
    There are philosophical works that outline methods that you can test yourself (e.g. the socratic method of teaching). Then it is more possible to verify whether or not it works well (even though it can be immensely irritating, also like the socratic method/conversation) and that makes it in my view less of a part of the realm of pure fantasy. Not that there is anything wrong with that realm, I just don't feel that it is worth the prestige that it sometimes gets.
    - steve_adams_86 5y ago
      Right, I see where you're coming from. I was curious if you'd categorize something like Socratic methods under fantasy as well. I agree though that practical, testable philosophies are nice in that they provide some degree of mental tangibility. I suppose the more fantasy-oriented stuff is useful as an exploratory or thought exercise, but like you I don't pursue it so much. I like when philosophy can help me (and those around me) live tomorrow better than today in a very direct sense.

krageon 5y ago

The problem I have with this is the same one I have with a lot of philosophical texts: It's a nice concept, kudos to you for coming up with it. Hundreds of such concepts exist and they all sound good to their authors. What is the point of coming up with them other than the kind of satisfaction children also know when they make up stories about the world around them?

Nemrod67 5y ago
yep, that's in theory what separates cranks from science :p IMHO the first step would be to identify values, parameters and their relationship. That's where science is done, but it is hard not to step in crank territory. It's not that original either, Gettier cases and Gödel's incompleteness are intertwined with these subjects. All it needs is some rigor and maybe something can come out of it. I posit this something is missing if we are to advance our Civilization further. EDIT: the poster of the link also posted a link about some Heidegger's "Question concerning Technology", seems like I've been missing some Heidegger as a foundation/inspiration http://www.english.hawaii.edu/criticalink/heidegger/index.html http://www.english.hawaii.edu/criticalink/heidegger/index.ht...
steve_adams_86 5y ago
Can you point to any philosophical texts you know of which don’t have this problem?
- krageon 5y ago
  There are philosophical works that outline methods that you can test yourself (e.g. the socratic method of teaching). Then it is more possible to verify whether or not it works well (even though it can be immensely irritating, also like the socratic method/conversation) and that makes it in my view less of a part of the realm of pure fantasy. Not that there is anything wrong with that realm, I just don't feel that it is worth the prestige that it sometimes gets.
  - steve_adams_86 5y ago
    Right, I see where you're coming from. I was curious if you'd categorize something like Socratic methods under fantasy as well. I agree though that practical, testable philosophies are nice in that they provide some degree of mental tangibility. I suppose the more fantasy-oriented stuff is useful as an exploratory or thought exercise, but like you I don't pursue it so much. I like when philosophy can help me (and those around me) live tomorrow better than today in a very direct sense.