|
a debate my girlfriend and i were having
|
View this Thread in Original format
| davinox |
OK, this is going to be difficult to explain, so hear me out. First of all, let me introduce to you my girlfriend. She's my age (seventeen) and very intelligent, which I consider myself as well, though in strikingly different ways. She is a staunch realist with a passion for the sciences (namely evolutionary biology). I don't want to blah blah blah about her abilities (placed second in Texas for Biology), but let's just say she knows her . She is, however, very close-minded to all other modes of thought. Religion and philosophy, in her view, are outdated and time and again crumble to the strict empirical method. The only way to truth, she says, is through observation and experimentation.
Now there's me. Rather than picking one field to dwell upon, I have dabbled in it all: religion, philosophy, science. I have spent most of my life contemplating the nature of my existence, several hours in each day. What I found was that there are many ways we as humans can explain existence. Some are far-fetched, but all at least, are possible. The Fundamentalist Christian argument is ridiculous, but it is possible. I then tried to think, well, since so many things are possible, what do I know is true?
Well, ontology is the philosophy dealing with truth, and it basically boils down to this one point. All existence can be put into a thing, or a thought, or an experience, this Isness that Is. All thoughts and ideas and abstractions, even the reasoning I used to come up with this concept, is an assumption that may not have anything to do with truth! Basically, this Isness, this thought or experience, is what we have, illusion or not. (of course, I cannot assume you have conscious thought, so saying we is an assumption) Whether or not this experience is 99 percent truth, 1 percent illusion, 99 percent illusion, 1 percent truth, we can never know. All we have is this experience. Learning about this experience is a relative truth, not necessarily an absolute truth.
So then, when we want to find relative truths, we turn to science, religion, philosophy, or some unnamed method. I think science is the most useful at the present time, since current technology makes it the most fruitful, but I do not diminish the religious experience which many scientists (including my girlfriend) do.
Which leads us to our present debate. I was talking about certain monks and yogi that have been rumored to have transcended beyond all instinct, so much to the point of death. This transcendence is not favored — you need your body to help out your fellow sentient beings — but it can occur. Now I don't know if this is true, but I think it's likely, as Nirvana is so remarkably transcending. (I have had a small religious experience while on mushrooms, and I know I had many many levels to go before Nirvana.)
I told this to my girlfriend, the possibility (though it's very difficult), of transcending all instincts into death. She thought it was the most ridiculous thing she's ever heard, and in the same realm as palm readers and Moses parting the water. Now, I told her that it was the logical end to the religious experience, which I told her, doesn't have to have any realm in truth, and could be a very scientific process of the brain, but the experience nevertheless exists. A end as such is forseeable, and I have read much more on religion and the mystical experience, so I considered myself an authority. She however said that it would contradict biology, and that it was no different that the contradiction of physics. Well, quite frankly, the debate started to get ugly there, me trying to beef up my case by mentioning neurotheology and psychosomatic cases with mind-over-matter, and her saying that denying the instinct to look at faces over other objects is too deeply rooted to remove and me laughing at how realist she was and how little she knew about the religious experience, having never done a drug or prayed or meditated.
But anyways, does anyone have any comments or know anything about how the brain reacts to mystical experience (neurotheology), or if you think it's possible to reach a state that denies ALL instincts? If not, any comments would be appreciated. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by davinox
OK, this is going to be difficult to explain, so hear me out. First of all, let me introduce to you my girlfriend. She's my age (seventeen) and very intelligent, which I consider myself as well, though in strikingly different ways. She is a staunch realist with a passion for the sciences (namely evolutionary biology). I don't want to blah blah blah about her abilities (placed second in Texas for Biology), but let's just say she knows her . She is, however, very close-minded to all other modes of thought. Religion and philosophy, in her view, are outdated and time and again crumble to the strict empirical method. The only way to truth, she says, is through observation and experimentation.
Now there's me. Rather than picking one field to dwell upon, I have dabbled in it all: religion, philosophy, science. I have spent most of my life contemplating the nature of my existence, several hours in each day. What I found was that there are many ways we as humans can explain existence. Some are far-fetched, but all at least, are possible. The Fundamentalist Christian argument is ridiculous, but it is possible. I then tried to think, well, since so many things are possible, what do I know is true?
Well, ontology is the philosophy dealing with truth, and it basically boils down to this one point. All existence can be put into a thing, or a thought, or an experience, this Isness that Is. All thoughts and ideas and abstractions, even the reasoning I used to come up with this concept, is an assumption that may not have anything to do with truth! Basically, this Isness, this thought or experience, is what we have, illusion or not. (of course, I cannot assume you have conscious thought, so saying we is an assumption) Whether or not this experience is 99 percent truth, 1 percent illusion, 99 percent illusion, 1 percent truth, we can never know. All we have is this experience. Learning about this experience is a relative truth, not necessarily an absolute truth.
So then, when we want to find relative truths, we turn to science, religion, philosophy, or some unnamed method. I think science is the most useful at the present time, since current technology makes it the most fruitful, but I do not diminish the religious experience which many scientists (including my girlfriend) do.
Which leads us to our present debate. I was talking about certain monks and yogi that have been rumored to have transcended beyond all instinct, so much to the point of death. This transcendence is not favored — you need your body to help out your fellow sentient beings — but it can occur. Now I don't know if this is true, but I think it's likely, as Nirvana is so remarkably transcending. (I have had a small religious experience while on mushrooms, and I know I had many many levels to go before Nirvana.)
I told this to my girlfriend, the possibility (though it's very difficult), of transcending all instincts into death. She thought it was the most ridiculous thing she's ever heard, and in the same realm as palm readers and Moses parting the water. Now, I told her that it was the logical end to the religious experience, which I told her, doesn't have to have any realm in truth, and could be a very scientific process of the brain, but the experience nevertheless exists. A end as such is forseeable, and I have read much more on religion and the mystical experience, so I considered myself an authority. She however said that it would contradict biology, and that it was no different that the contradiction of physics. Well, quite frankly, the debate started to get ugly there, me trying to beef up my case by mentioning neurotheology and psychosomatic cases with mind-over-matter, and her saying that denying the instinct to look at faces over other objects is too deeply rooted to remove and me laughing at how realist she was and how little she knew about the religious experience, having never done a drug or prayed or meditated.
But anyways, does anyone have any comments or know anything about how the brain reacts to mystical experience (neurotheology), or if you think it's possible to reach a state that denies ALL instincts? If not, any comments would be appreciated. |
I don't know about her views on religion, however I'd say it's incredibly foolish to ignore philosophy, though at 17, neither of you has probably had significant exposure to it. Philosophy doesn't necessarily conflict with observation, rather my personal favorite philosophy is centered on objectivity and rationality. I don't think people really take an interest in philosophy until they've matured a bit--it's a pretty deep rabbit hole.
The rest of what you wrote was a bit confusing to me. Too much mysticism and theory. I doubt you spend 3 hours a day sitting there contemplating your existence unless you're that bored in school.
My personal philosophy is very much akin to Objectivism. Sounds like your g/f would have an interest in it, though I wouldn't necessarily advocate it unless you've educated yourself on several other philosophies/philosophers and can see through the BS that the Neitzches, Kants, and Mills have purported. But that's just my opinion. |
|
|
| davinox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
My personal philosophy is very much akin to Objectivism. Sounds like your g/f would have an interest in it, though I wouldn't necessarily advocate it unless you've educated yourself on several other philosophies/philosophers and can see through the BS that the Neitzches, Kants, and Mills have purported. But that's just my opinion. |
well you see, the biggest problem with philosophy is that even logical reasoning is a "thought", therefore is inherently an assumption. philosophy is only useful to achieve that truth, learn relative truths through logic, and to help the condition of your life.
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
The rest of what you wrote was a bit confusing to me. Too much mysticism and theory. I doubt you spend 3 hours a day sitting there contemplating your existence unless you're that bored in school.
|
haha usually i spent it at night, and i've been through pretty much everything (christianity, nihilism, existentialism). yes I have much to learn, but thankfully I can see the incomming knowledge for what it is, as just more of this strange picture i've been presented, rather than jump from "oh this is the truth" to "oh, no, this is the truth."
yes some day I will find the brute ontological logic to support my vague ideas, but yeah i'm too young and lazy to do so. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by davinox
well you see, the biggest problem with philosophy is that even logical reasoning is a "thought", therefore is inherently an assumption. philosophy is only useful to achieve that truth, learn relative truths through logic, and to help the condition of your life. |
There's much more to it than that. It's not "Philosophy" that there's a problem with--perhaps just the individual philosophies that you have studied. Sounds like you've focused more on mysticism and the like.
In my opinion, adopting a philosophy means adopting a system that will guide your decision making process. If you can defend your underlying philosophy(which will in turn dictate your politics among other things), you can defend your actions. There are so many of them out there that it would be foolish at 17 to think you've figured it all out. You need to have a philosophy or else your mind will be muddled and you will not have an underlying blueprint to guide your actions according to your core beliefs.;)
Edit: A lot of people nowadays will try to tell you that Altruism is the philosophy of choice for man, but I have come to believe that's a load of . Altruism is a crime against man designed to enslave him and ultimately leads to Communist/Socialist behavior which I think is ultimately destructive(though I know there are many who would take issue with me). These are much deeper issues than I can write about in this short space(and while I'm at work). |
|
|
| davinox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
There's much more to it than that. It's not "Philosophy" that there's a problem with--perhaps just the individual philosophies that you have studied. Sounds like you've focused more on mysticism and the like.
In my opinion, adopting a philosophy means adopting a system that will guide your decision making process. If you can defend your underlying philosophy(which will in turn dictate your politics among other things), you can defend your actions. There are so many of them out there that it would be foolish at 17 to think you've figured it all out. You need to have a philosophy or else your mind will be muddled and you will not have an underlying blueprint to guide your actions according to your core beliefs.;)
Edit: A lot of people nowadays will try to tell you that Altruism is the philosophy of choice for man, but I have come to believe that's a load of . Altruism is a crime against man designed to enslave him and ultimately leads to Communist/Socialist behavior which I think is ultimately destructive(though I know there are many who would take issue with me). These are much deeper issues than I can write about in this short space(and while I'm at work). |
hahah we were talking about totally different things. yeah, i was just ontologically rambling. of course i dont know how i should live my life! I was talking instead about what I can discern is "true".
but it doesnt really matter...
no i'm not an altruist, in fact, i'm very selvish. my life philosophy is to enjoy my existence as much as possible, and if that involves being nice or mean, so be it, whatever social game it takes. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by davinox
hahah we were talking about totally different things. yeah, i was just ontologically rambling. of course i dont know how i should live my life! I was talking instead about what I can discern is "true". |
There are truths. If I stick a knife in my arm, penetrating the skin, I will bleed. There are plenty of absolutes in the world.
Have you ever read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? Both books changed my life and really helped me solidify my personal philosophy. I had to go through the rigors of learning the flaws with the other philosophies that i had been taught. People love to poo-poo on Rand, but I have never read a more rational, logical, defensible, well thought out philosophical sytem than hers. It's deep reading, but some of the most rewarding reading I've ever done.
Check out:
Ayn Rand Institute
Specifically, an EXTREMELY brief overview: here
You really have to read her works to fully grasp it, but I love it. Fountainhead is about 600 pages long, Atlas Shrugged, arguably her crowning achievement is about 1100 pages long. Both are well worth the effort, but if you're going to read them both, I'd start with Fountainhead first. |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
There are truths. If I stick a knife in my arm, penetrating the skin, I will bleed. There are plenty of absolutes in the world.
Have you ever read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? Both books changed my life and really helped me solidify my personal philosophy. I had to go through the rigors of learning the flaws with the other philosophies that i had been taught. People love to poo-poo on Rand, but I have never read a more rational, logical, defensible, well thought out philosophical sytem than hers. It's deep reading, but some of the most rewarding reading I've ever done.
Check out:
Ayn Rand Institute
Specifically, an EXTREMELY brief overview: here
You really have to read her works to fully grasp it, but I love it. Fountainhead is about 600 pages long, Atlas Shrugged, arguably her crowning achievement is about 1100 pages long. Both are well worth the effort, but if you're going to read them both, I'd start with Fountainhead first. |
I was told I should read Atlas Shrugged but christ- 1100?
I think I already have ADD as it is. Isnt there a tape version? :D
Maybe I should read it to edumacate myself. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by xKaoSx
I was told I should read Atlas Shrugged but christ- 1100?
I think I already have ADD as it is. Isnt there a tape version? :D
Maybe I should read it to edumacate myself. |
Took me the better part of a summer to read it(I'm a slow reader and Rand is difficult to read at times so I essentially read the book twice), however it stuck with me like glue in my brain and I think I can tell you the name and purpose of every major character in her novels and what their significance was simply because it stuck with me so strongly.
I guess it's a matter of finding the philosophy that fits with your mindset. Once I read Fountainhead, I knew I was hooked.
Yeah, they're long, but worth it if you have time.:) |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Took me the better part of a summer to read it(I'm a slow reader and Rand is difficult to read at times so I essentially read the book twice), however it stuck with me like glue in my brain and I think I can tell you the name and purpose of every major character in her novels and what their significance was simply because it stuck with me so strongly.
I guess it's a matter of finding the philosophy that fits with your mindset. Once I read Fountainhead, I knew I was hooked.
Yeah, they're long, but worth it if you have time.:) |
Well- Crap- now I am intrigued-
Maybe I will delve into Fountainhead if you suggest to read that first since it's shorter. :)
If it truely is involving like you say i wont put it down- if I veer off and get bored I wont finish it. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by xKaoSx
Well- Crap- now I am intrigued-
Maybe I will delve into Fountainhead if you suggest to read that first since it's shorter. :)
If it truely is involving like you say i wont put it down- if I veer off and get bored I wont finish it. |
It's philosophy(very evident when you start to read it) wrapped in a novel. If you truly want to read it, you will finish it. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
There are truths. If I stick a knife in my arm, penetrating the skin, I will bleed. There are plenty of absolutes in the world.
Have you ever read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? Both books changed my life and really helped me solidify my personal philosophy. I had to go through the rigors of learning the flaws with the other philosophies that i had been taught. People love to poo-poo on Rand, but I have never read a more rational, logical, defensible, well thought out philosophical sytem than hers. It's deep reading, but some of the most rewarding reading I've ever done.
Check out:
Ayn Rand Institute
Specifically, an EXTREMELY brief overview: here
You really have to read her works to fully grasp it, but I love it. Fountainhead is about 600 pages long, Atlas Shrugged, arguably her crowning achievement is about 1100 pages long. Both are well worth the effort, but if you're going to read them both, I'd start with Fountainhead first. |
Uh Oh ... not another discussion on absolute truths hehe. Anyway I'm too lazy to retype my opinion but go to this thread:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...hs&pagenumber=5
scroll down to arbiter's post and follow the discussion from there. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Uh Oh ... not another discussion on absolute truths hehe. Anyway I'm too lazy to retype my opinion but go to this thread:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...hs&pagenumber=5
scroll down to arbiter's post and follow the discussion from there. |
Dammit, Occ! Why you gots ta rain on my parade! |
|
|
|
|
