The idea that beliefs and philosophy is meaningless and silly

[Unlearner]

Of course these are all your beliefs, that is certainly correct. You do not know if you are even correct in your beliefs, and this is also certainly correct. But why is it correct? Simply because you believe it to be?

 

What does this mean for you in terms of living your life? Does this "understanding" of belief empower you in some way? I would like to know why it is so important for you to define how beliefs shape your perception of "the true universe". Does it mean that there is no such thing as a "true universe" beyond the beliefs you ascribe to it? Or is there something else involved?

 

"Does it mean that there is no such thing as a "true universe" beyond the beliefs you ascribe to it?"

No, it is quite the opposite in my understanding; rather, it is the beliefs themselves, based on my perceptions, which limit my understanding of reality. However, this is the only way that I can begin to try to understand anything about the true nature in the first place. It is not so much that it empowers me, but that I can acknowledge that my understanding is going to be incomplete to begin with. By seeing the limitations of my perception, the nature of what it means to have belief, and how my beliefs limit my ability to understand the true nature of the universe, this is where understanding can actually begin.

 

For a practical example, let's apply this to science. There have been many times throughout the history of scientific exploration in which there has been a general feeling that everything had been "figured out". Pack it up boys, we're done here, we got nothing else to do, we'll leave the rest to the lawyers and politicians. Yet, in their secure feelings, time and time again someone would come along to show them that they were not only completely incorrect, but that there was an entirely new level of understanding that was just below where they decided to stop digging. Why did this happen? Closed-mindedness. Lack of understanding of the limitations of their perceptions. Mistaking what they "believed" they were observing for concrete, unquestionable knowledge. That is why today we say "theory" instead of "law". We do not "prove" something, we "provide evidence" for it. By not mistaking a simple observation for complete, concrete proof that the universe is exactly the way we think we understand it to be, we can avoid getting to far ahead of ourselves and falling into this trap again.

 

Mathematics is another good example that this can be applied to. In this case, consider how we can substitute "belief" in reality for the term "assumption" within mathematics. Mathematics on its own is just a language, created and used by people. It's basically an imaginary construct which we can use to create models, which we can make to resemble our universe. How do we do this? By making assumptions about the construct. With no assumptions, the construct is formless and infinite; however, because it is formless, we can not use it for anything, it cannot be applied to anything, it cannot be made to resemble anything or perform any function, and we cannot understand all of the subtleties and nuances which lie within it. It is only once we begin to make assumptions that we can begin to apply it, mold it, and understand what it is capable of, what is contained within the domain of its existence. If we make too many assumptions, though, then whatever we learn about it cannot be used to understand its true nature. We can make assumptions to the point where we can create a model which matches anything we want it to resemble, however it comes at the cost of not being able to generalize it to a more appropriately applicable level; it can be exactly what we want to see, but it only exists within the realm of those many assumptions, and has no use anywhere else. Thus, it is the goal of any mathematician to discover new solutions and models while making as few assumptions as possible.

 

Why is it not about the sensation, and about being able to abstractly conceptualize a "singular property from an observation made by the observer"? Why is it about detaching yourself from the physical body and entering a realm of pure ideation? You have made the distinction of importance and priority here, and I would like to understand why. Personally I do not share your priorities, but perhaps I am in error in regards to the process of "unlearning"? Tell me more.

 

I think to say that I am trying to enter into a realm of pure ideation is missing the point a little bit. By understanding the nature of belief, I am not describing what I can understand about the true nature of things, I am describing what I am aware that I cannot understand about the true nature of things. I am acknowledging my inability to gain such an intimate relationship with reality through the mere experience of my senses. I am affirming that the many properties of fire that I experience through my senses does not give me a direct insight into what fire is. To make such claims, to say that I can use my senses and perceptions and observations to attain a direct "knowledge" of the true nature of the universe, in my own personal opinion, is absolute, pure, unadulterated ignorance.

 

To learn is to increase one's knowledge. By recognizing that I now see claims to knowledge of the external universe as a form of ignorance, I can only simply say that I believe.

[9th]

I think to say that I am trying to enter into a realm of pure ideation is missing the point a little bit. By understanding the nature of belief, I am not describing what I can understand about the true nature of things, I am describing what I am aware that I cannot understand about the true nature of things. I am acknowledging my inability to gain such an intimate relationship with reality through the mere experience of my senses. I am affirming that the many properties of fire that I experience through my senses does not give me a direct insight into what fire is. To make such claims, to say that I can use my senses and perceptions and observations to attain a direct "knowledge" of the true nature of the universe, in my own personal opinion, is absolute, pure, unadulterated ignorance.

 

Its only missing the point if you refuse to hear what I am saying. Namely, the rejection of sense perception in favor of ideas which parse experience into conceptual frameworks involving observers and the singular properties they attribute to objects. To reiterate, you said "It's not about whether it hurts or not", which is something that I would say sounds like "pure, unadulterated ignorance."

 

Also - who has made the claim that senses and perceptions and observations will allow someone to attain a direct "knowledge" of the true nature of the universe? You seem to be making your own assumptions here.

 

Furthermore, it seems that you have some sort of bias against the idea of "knowledge".

 

To learn is to increase one's knowledge. By recognizing that I now see claims to knowledge of the external universe as a form of ignorance, I can only simply say that I believe.

 

So you equate the word "knowledge" with ignorance? That seems to be quite a stretch from the original intent of the word, but hey - to each their own. Yet in a strange way this seems to be in direct conflict with your other statements..

 

No, it is quite the opposite in my understanding; rather, it is the beliefs themselves, based on my perceptions, which limit my understanding of reality. However, this is the only way that I can begin to try to understand anything about the true nature in the first place.

 

So if beliefs based on perception limit your ability to acquire "understanding", how are you going to gain "understanding" simply by rejecting beliefs based on perception? How exactly do you gain access to some kind of "true understanding" that is not limited by beliefs based on perception, simply by directly referencing these same beliefs based on perception as being "not true"?

 

Ultimately, you may be able to impress yourself (and other people with similar mindsets) with these kinds of semantics. But you arent really saying much at all. Of course there is much more than meets the eye. But to make the claim that because you dont see it, actually means you do see it, is again "pure, unadulterated ignorance."... imho, of course.

[Unlearner]

Its only missing the point if you refuse to hear what I am saying. Namely, the rejection of sense perception in favor of ideas which parse experience into conceptual frameworks involving observers and the singular properties they attribute to objects. To reiterate, you said "It's not about whether it hurts or not", which is something that I would say sounds like "pure, unadulterated ignorance."

 

I feel like we've started to go onto two different tracks of discussion. I'm not trying to disagree with you, I'm simply trying to explain that I'm focusing on something else, which is the nature of the beliefs themselves, not of the perceptions. It's not that I'm rejecting sense perception in favor of the abstract; our perception is the only thing that actually connects us with the external universe, and without it we would have no information about the universe. I'm simply saying that we must recognize the limitations of those perceptions. If you feel that the information which your brain receives and processes from your eyes and ears allows you "direct" insight into the universe, then we would be at a disagreement. However, it's not that I'm saying that this information allows no insight whatsoever (I wouldn't be very interested in science if that were so), I'm just trying to recognize the limitations. That's what I mean when I say that "it doesn't matter whether it hurts or not" to stick your hand into the fire. In your perception, it may hurt, but to someone who has little or no feeling in their hand, or simply someone with extremely thick skin, it may not hurt. It's all based on our perceptions, but those perceptions have their limits.

 

Also - who has made the claim that senses and perceptions and observations will allow someone to attain a direct "knowledge" of the true nature of the universe? You seem to be making your own assumptions here.

 

Is not the title of this topic "The idea that beliefs and philosophy is meaningless and silly"? I'm simply trying to share my perspective, I'm not trying to go on the offensive and start an argument.

 

Furthermore, it seems that you have some sort of bias against the idea of "knowledge".

 

Perhaps this is so, but how many philosophers and scholars have come to the same conclusion?

 

"I know that I know nothing."

-Socrates

 

"Learning consists in daily accumulating; The practice of Tao consists in daily diminishing"

-Tao Teh Ching, Ch 48

 

Then again, knowledge is simply a word, just like any other word. It only contains whatever meaning we assign to it. In this context, I'm using it to illustrate that to "know" something means to have an absolute 100% certainty, without any doubt there could possibly be any other alternative. And yes, I disagree with this mindset.

 

So you equate the word "knowledge" with ignorance? That seems to be quite a stretch from the original intent of the word, but hey - to each their own. Yet in a strange way this seems to be in direct conflict with your other statements..

 

In the context of my explanation above, yes. The way I am trying to differentiate between "knowledge" and "understanding" in this discussion is that to say that I "know" means that I have absolutely no doubt in my mind; to say that I "understand" means that, from what I have contemplated, interpreted, and gathered from my own perceptions and experiences, it is the best way that I can explain it, even though I'm acknowledging that this understanding may or may not be accurate.

 

So if beliefs based on perception limit your ability to acquire "understanding", how are you going to gain "understanding" simply by rejecting beliefs based on perception? How exactly do you gain access to some kind of "true understanding" that is not limited by beliefs based on perception, simply by directly referencing these same beliefs based on perception as being "not true"?

 

Again, you seem to be thinking that I outright reject beliefs based on perception, which is why I said that you were missing my point. If I said anything that implied as such in my explanation, then I take it back, as that is not what I intended to say. I will even reiterate once more, that our perceptions and senses are the only things we have that connect us to the external reality.

 

In regards to how I may gain an understanding in the first place, well, I have to start somewhere, I'm simply trying to achieve the "fewest assumptions possible" goal, but without getting caught into the trap of claiming more than I am actually capable of. My understanding is not that which I claim that I know, it is simply the best way I can explain what I have observed. Understanding is something that everyone has, regardless of whether it is an accurate or inaccurate understanding, we all have some way of explaining how we perceive the world around us, not simply to others but to ourselves. I don't believe I said that my aim was to gain a "true understanding", but I do attempt to gain a better, more accurate understanding. Rather, the entire focus of my explanation up to now has been that one cannot gain a true understanding through the means of beliefs which have been formulated through our perceptions. That is the limitation. That is why we have beliefs in the first place.

 

Ultimately, you may be able to impress yourself (and other people with similar mindsets) with these kinds of semantics. But you arent really saying much at all. Of course there is much more than meets the eye. But to make the claim that because you dont see it, actually means you do see it, is again "pure, unadulterated ignorance."... imho, of course.

 

This is more of just an ad hominem attack, so I'm not going to comment on it. I'm not here to argue, I'm just trying to express an opinion.

 

Also, I'm doing my best to answer your questions directly as you ask them to me. If you feel that I'm doing a bad job of that, please let me know.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Unlearner

[Stosh]

From wikipedia...just give it the consideration you feel it deserves..

 

"However, in Apology, Plato relates that:^[3]

[…] οὖτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴμαι

–

This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing [anything]. On the other hand, I – equally ignorant – do not believe [that I know anything].

The impreciseness of the paraphrase of this as I know that I know nothing stems from the fact that the author is not saying that he does not know anything but means instead that one cannot know anything with absolute certainty but can feel confident about certain things.^[4]

 

 

^{Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1][2][3] asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.[4] When used in this sense, the word form or idea is often capitalized.[5] Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only true objects of study that can provide us with genuine knowledge; thus even apart from the very controversial status of the theory, Plato's own views are much in doubt.[6] Plato spoke of Forms in formulating a possible solution to the problem of universals. "}

Edited October 14, 2013 by Stosh

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Perhaps this is so, but how many philosophers and scholars have come to the same conclusion?

 

"I know that I know nothing."

-Socrates

 

This quote is taken completely out of its context, which is Plato's account of Socrates trial and Plato's dialogues are not philosophical treatises in the modern sense, they are rather initiatory dramas of which this one, the Aplolgy is both protreptic and cathartic, protreptic meaning a call to philosophy by the dramatic example of Socrates and cathartic means of ritual of cleansing of the conceit of knowledge, which is the case of just about everyone is mere belief masguerading as knowledge. More about that in a moment.

 

From wikipedia...just give it the consideration you feel it deserves..

 

"However, in Apology, Plato relates that:^[3]

 

The impreciseness of the paraphrase of this as I know that I know nothing stems from the fact that the author is not saying that he does not know anything but means instead that one cannot know anything with absolute certainty but can feel confident about certain things.^[4]

 

 

^{Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1][2][3] asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.[4] When used in this sense, the word form or idea is often capitalized.[5] Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only true objects of study that can provide us with genuine knowledge; thus even apart from the very controversial status of the theory, Plato's own views are much in doubt.[6] Plato spoke of Forms in formulating a possible solution to the problem of universals. "}

 

Thanks Stosh for bringing this up.

 

Plato deals with the difference between 'knowledge' and 'opinion' in the Meno and makes a good comparison there, that the difference between knowledge and belief is like the difference between having a map and actually having gone on a journey. He also make a distinction between various types of belief, right belief, belief in which the belief corresponds to knowledge, just like an accurate map might, but which since one has not made the journey lacks the confirmation of direct experience. Then there is good opinion and bad opinion and worse opinion, etc. all of which are more or less misleading.

 

The closes example to right belief that I can think of is the present model of the Solar System, and example of good belief would be the Newtonian model and an example of 'better' belief would be the relativistic reframing of the phenomena. Worse belief would of course be the Ptolemaic models of the Solar System which these replaced.

 

For Plato 'knowledge' is the direct apprehension of reality, of which the realm of sense experiences is a representation, or reflection, and as true a representation as can be made within the limits of sensations, images and appearances. Thus the realm of sense can be used as a starting point on the journey to knowledge. He outlines such an approach in his Symposium as rising to the vision of the beautiful itself, which far from being an abstraction, or a set of abstractions, is the reality of which all beautiful things are the reminders. It is this rising to the direct experience which is what Plato considers to be the purpose of Philosophy. It is a journey of exploration in which making the map and going on the journey are the same things.

 

I wish I could say more about this now, but that's all I have time to say today and at least for the near future.

[dawei]

There is no such thing as not having a belief system

 

I agree. It is there just as our senses are. But the more we reduce our reliance (and belief) and our senses the less power they have over the formation of belief based on external stimuli. And the more we can look inward for clarity and intuition.

 

I don't know if the goal (or even my goal) is to get rid of beliefs) but simply sink into something else. And let belief morph as it will but it becomes secondary on some level, yet still there. I guess I mean: If one is stuck at the level of trying to change belief then belief itself seems to have the control. Step aside, step outside it. It is still there but you are less there.

 

Baopuzi has an interesting line that goes something like: Clarity is an endowment and ethics a practice.

 

To me, there is so much meaning to take from this but one is that clarity comes from somewhere outside oneself; its source is not of this world. While ethics (or anything we believe) is inside oneself and generates a desire to 'practice' it to improve oneself.

 

@Skydog: I think you would like the book The Biology of Belief. It is also in audio.