*

+
               In Defense of the Mind
.
/ Topic > Re: The Philosopher-Colonel /
/ Newsgroups: alt.tv.stargate-sg1 and /
/ alt.religion.apologetics and alt.philosophy /
/ Forum > TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion / 24Nov02 /
.
>> textman previously wrote: <snip> For many Christians
>> philosophy is inherently evil for no other reason than
>> that philosophers refuse to agree to anything without
>> first thinking things through.
.
> On Oct8 Mike Dubbeld (miike@erols.com) replied: I think
> about this a lot. Today I was listening to the Old Testament
.
 textman say: On the radio, you mean? Or the OT on tape/CD?
.
> and heard how the prophets in Christianity
.
 Such as the dreaded Montanists?
.
> grew to be distrusted and despised from all the
> things they got wrong.
.
 Well, pretty much everybody was making some mistakes in those
early centuries; the prophet Paulos (in one of his moments of
extreme honesty) even admits as much with his "for we still
see through a mirror in a riddle" remark (cf. 1Cor.13:12).
Believers were still groping through the darkness of ignorance
and unknowing, as it were. Nevertheless, imperfection is not
easily tolerated among those prophets claiming direct access
to the Holy Spirit; and a few extremists turned the majority
away from the prophets altogether ... And straight into
the tender mercies of the scribes and pharisees. Thus was
orthodoxy born. Egad!
.
> But they were prophets not philosophers.
.
 I'm not sure what you're implying, Mike. It seems to me that
the chief distinction between these two types is mostly a
matter of faith, such that the differences are a question
of degree, not of kind.
.
> But Christianity did a lot of Platonizing.
.
 Right. It was the Christian philosophers, such as Clement and
Origen of Alexandria, who enriched the Christian prophetic
traditions by building and running the first Christian schools,
by initiating biblical science through the application of
critical methods (eg. by placing different versions in parallel
rows on one page for easy comparison), and by making use of
the best philosophical thinking available to them at the
time. Needless to say, the philosophical thought available to
thoughtful believers today is *very* much better in quality and
scope than the neo-Platonism of the pre-Constantinian era!
.
> Just this morning I was thinking about how reading 'The
> Elegant Universe' the author was saying how physicists look
> for 'beauty' in the universe. Symmetry simplifies the math
> and usually turns out to be what is true. How aesthetics is
> a 'branch of philosophy' dealing with beauty. How Pythagoras
> and gang thought beauty and harmony were divine. With his
> 'Musical Spheres' - order in the universe. 'All is number'
> Pythagoras said. He found number in music and triangles so
> number/geometry must have some sort of underlying Reality
> in the universe. The Christians stole a lot of 'beauty'
> from Plato.
.
 They borrowed and adapted many ideas for the service of the
Faith, Mike. There's no such thing as "stealing" concepts or
ideas or theories in the world of philosophy. Rather, all
philosophers contribute to the common pool of knowledge, such
that these ideas may battle with those, leading to progress
through a dialectical process like unto the more biological
'survival of the fittest'. In philosophy, bad ideas will
eventually be found out and summarily executed. In religion,
however, bad ideas usually just get enshrined, and then
elevated to inerrant and infallible status!
.
> Which is better - to have a religion that makes sense
> logically (is beautiful) and so you can understand
> believing it -
.
 I'm all for that baby, oh yeah! :D
.
> or is this just human ego attaching things to make
> Christianity more palpable/believable/easier to go down?
.
 Heck no! Such an accusation fairly reeks of psychological
reductionism, and as such can be summarily dismissed as
rank nonsense not even meriting a considered response.
.
> Have to wrestle with these questions
.
 You mean YOU have to wrestle with these questions, bud.
The offensive one has rather more important work to do. :)
.
> - cause like you say - in India they simply do
> not distinguish between science and religion.
> 'Truth is where you find it' is more their motto.
.
 Seems like that's everybody's motto these days. :(
.
> <snip> Today I found a post on Existentialism.
> Existentialism is probably the dumbest thing there is
.
 The popular understanding of Existentialism undoubtedly leaves
much to be desired, but even there we finds ripe seeds with
the potential for future growth; as for example in the 'New
Existentialism' developed by Colin Wilson. Check it out first,
Mike, and THEN you can say whether or not Existentialism is
dumb or dead or whatever.
.
> - but people fall for it - which tell you something
> about them.
.
 Indeed it does! It tells me that sensible people are
searching for sensible answers to sensible questions and
problems that nobody else seems willing or able to address.
.
> The point being that there is something called Existential
> Despair - which is the idea that nothing is real and one can
> do no wrong and there is no order in the universe - what is
> the point of doing anything? We got this from a guy that
> went insane from syphilis and called his philosophy 'The Gay
> Science'. Nietzsche. <snipsome> So this to me - like atheism
> - is a philosophy that causes damage to the more ignorant in
> a society. It does not matter if you are an existentialist
> or atheist - whether you agree with me on this or not - you
> can see my point that philosophies divide people. But all
> philosophies are toys of the mind anyway and Reality is not
> found in the mind at all so ALL philosophies can only ever
> end in frustration.
.
 Well Mike, since I've never been frustrated by Nietzsche and
existentialism, or by any other specific philosophy, I can't
say that I agree with your reasoning much. Moreover, I have
serious doubts about the notion that philosophy causes despair,
doubt, disbelief, or whatnot. Most people come to philosophy
(and may even remain there) looking for confirmation for their
own views, attitudes, and notions regarding the world. This is
perfectly acceptable in principle, and only becomes a problem
when it causes good ideas to be rejected in favor of bad ones.
.
>>> Since philosophy is about the mind,
>>> and Reality is not found in the mind,
.
>> There are more than a few philosophers who would
>> disagree with that statement on one or both counts!
.
> Doesn't matter - bring an army.
.
 My brothers, the philosophers and prophets, together
constitute the most powerful army the world has ever seen!
.
> If you think Reality is found in the mind - your problem -
> not mine. The mind is a limited instrument and is quite
> incapable of comprehending Reality at all. <snip>
.
 Firstly, I've never claimed that Reality is found within the
mind. Such a notion is entirely too Cartesian for my taste.
No, reality is an objective and external process, and human
beings are only very small units lodged deep within the bowels
of the Great & Nameless Thingy That Is! Secondly, I very much
agree with you that mind is a limited instrument, but cannot
accept your conclusion that mind is *absolutely* incapable of
comprehending Reality. Of course mind can comprehend reality!
That's the whole point of having mind (and philosophy as
well) in the first place.
.
>>> philosophers wind up being an angry cynical lot in their
>>> frustration. But then learning where it is not is valuable
>>> too. The truly sad part is that philosophers do not know
>>> what they are looking for to begin with.
.
>> Sure they do. Russell started out with a very clear idea of
>> what he was looking for. He was looking for certainty; and
>> he thought that the best place to look for it was in logic
>> and mathematics. Eventually he realized that certainty
>> couldn't be found there, or anywhere else for that matter.
.
> That's right. Russell and Whitehead failed to reduce
> mathematics to logic (I would have tried the other way).
.
 Nonsense. The idea is right: logic IS fundamental. The
problem is that logic comes from out of a region that cannot
be described in mathematical terms or with logical precision;
because the roots of logic, and rationality in general, are
buried deep in pre-rational chaos and illogical darkness. How
that works exactly, I don't know, so don't ask me to explain
it. I'm just a dumb bible-scholar. :)
.
> But that has little to do with anything. Reality is not
> found in logic and mathematics because like philosophy
> logic and mathematics belong to the mind also.
.
 Good Grief!
.
>> This is the sad part. No certainty anywhere!
.
> No, that is the result of having looked for it only in the
> mind. Reality is found by leaving the mind behind altogether.
.
 Yeah? I see most human realities composed of both 'thoughts'
and 'emotions', or 'head-stuff' and 'heart-stuff', but
bearing in mind that these are not two separate and distinct
categories, but rather one and the same thing. Once we start
thinking about, and talking about, what's going on around and
within us, we necessarily chop reality up into nice little
manageable bits and pieces ('categories' or whatnot). But
this is merely a product of our use of language. In reality
one can never "leave the mind behind altogether"; except
when falling into a drunken stupor, or going to sleep.
.
> <snip long outburst of solipsism> Yogis use their will to
> detach their awareness from that which it is aware of by
> concentration and the meditation that flows from it.
.
 You don't say? And HOW, pray tell, do they manage this
alleged concentration and meditation without the active
participation of mind? Pure will, perhaps? "Will" can
"detach" itself from "mind" (presumably at will) can it?
.
 ... right
.
> Out of sustained meditation comes contemplation - a state
> rarely achieved by mortal man/the Ignorant. Out of sustained
> contemplation come samadhi at which time Self Realization
> occurs. At that time the person knows who he really is and
> what he was born for. He at once knows the world of the
> mind and the senses as shadows on the wall of Plato's cave.
.
 So then Buddhists and Hindus are really just Platonists in
disguise? Well, that would certainly explain why the people
of the mythical "East" are unable to comprehend the far more
Aristotelian ways of the post-modern global village! Hey,
somebody better tell them it's time to wake up. Hello,
twenty-first century calling! Is there anybody home?!
.
>>> md: Sad because they come closer than all others - but
>>> close is only good in horseshoes and hand-grenades.
.
>> tx: Close is NOT good in horseshoes, but it is good in
>> philosophy, in the sense that while no one philosopher's
>> thinking is perfect in all respects, nevertheless each
>> one contributes something to the common cause; and so
>> philosophy develops by taking two steps forward and one
>> step backward.
.
> md: Close is baloney. You either know or you do not.
> It is as simple as that.
.
 Reality is simple? The truth of things is simple?
The world in all it's glory and diversity is SIMPLE?
 ... Not by this guy's measurements, bud!
.
> Reality is not found in the mind at all and looking for
> reality in the mind is not only not worthwhile - it is the
> wrong project. Attempting to understand mind using mind is
> like trying to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.
> From knowledge comes power. The only Ariadne's golden cord
> you see is this. The more knowledge you acquire the more
> power you gain over more situations.
.
 You've got me all wrong, Mike! I DON'T believe that power
comes from knowledge. I believe that true power comes from
love AND truth! That's the only source of LASTING power that
I know of. Nor can one understand mind *without* using mind.
The contradiction exists on your end, Mike, not over here.
.
> This is Her Lure/Plato's 'Fall'. Why you are enticed to
> seek truth using the mind/philosophy/science/math. You,
> like all others, seek to 'become powerful and rule others'.
.
 ME?! Me rule others? The puny and insignificant one as
the supreme leader of the chaotic world-state? hmmm ...
Just doesn't work for me, Mike. Sorry :p
.
> The world is a scary place living in the mind because the
> mind can ever only guess what the future will bring. And
> the best way to guess what the future will bring is to
> understand why things happened in the past
.
 Isn't that a job best suited for historians of exceptional
merit and quality? I certainly wouldn't want to entrust the
care of the past into the hands of quacks and baboons!!!
.
> - so you seek knowledge to control/secure the future. But
> no matter how much knowledge you acquire - the best you will
> ever be left doing is GUESSING. Predicting. Probability.
.
 Probability is the chief tool of working historians, without
which there could be no History as we understand it.
.
> Scary thing having to live only in the mind.
.
 Doesn't scare me one bit. Ignorance and stupidity,
however, very much DOES scare me!
.
> It hardens you pretty good.
.
 Doesn't harden me one bit. Pretty girls, however, [the swine-
editor insists on snipping the remainder of this particular
elaboration; we apologize for any inconvenience that may ensue]
.
> <snip> As long as awareness is caught in the mind guessing
> and fearful of things Reality can NEVER be understood. You
> are not your mind because you can control your mind with
> your will. There is something within you that never ever
> changes.
.
 Your efforts to vanquish the mind are irrational and counter-
productive, Mike. The truth is that 'intuition' is just as
much "mind" as 'discursive-reasoning' is. And while it may or
may not be true that there is an eternal spark within us, we
cannot make contact with it simply by willing it to happen.
Mind is *necessarily* involved in ALL acts of perception and
understanding and awareness.
.
>> P.S. "We can know things, but not certainly. That is why it
>> is always best to allow for the possibility we are wrong,
.
> No no no. YOU have to allow for that possibility. I do not
> agree with this. If and when you find Reality you will
> know the absurdity of this statement. You know everything
> already. It is a question of your ability to RECALL it.
.
 But you got this idea from Socrates!
.
> <snip> God created man in His own essence does not mean
> God has a head 2 arms and 2 legs etc.
.
 Right. The scriptures say that God created man in the divine
image, which I take to mean that the essence of human being
is rational and spiritual. Logos and Spirit! We become more
fully human the more we actualize and manifest both logos
and spirit within our lives and persons.
.
> Concentration is available to all but because it is so
> difficult very few succeed and the few that do usually do
> from their spiritual determination. Controlling the mind is
> the most difficult thing that you will ever do. The reason
> you were born is to concentrate the mind. Someday in some
> life you also will know this. -- Mike Dubbeld
.
Sorry, Mike. The reason *I* was born is to clear away the dust
and dirt that has accumulated and encrusted upon the word of
God, thereby preventing the light of truth to shine forth in
all its natural brightness and beauty! It's not so much a
matter of simply recalling what has been forgotten, as it
is a matter of creatively reclaiming and reconstructing and
rejuvenating a truth (or set of truths) that has up till now
existed only potentially. The history of the Faith is like
this: first we stumble & fall, and then we get up to advance,
only to stumble and fall again! Our progress is thus not
measured by how many have fallen, or how often they have
stumbled, but rather by how far we have come since the
'Word of Life' was first revealed in Nazareth so long ago.
.
       - the one constantly stumbling - textmman ;>
.
P.S. No King but Jesus, Jack!
x

---

textman
*