[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
If the mind is the shaper of concepts, where does it find the basic materials he give shape to ?
Does the mind create them ?
In other words :
Is there something before and outside the shaping activity of the mind ?
[/quote]
The question is flawed - the very concept of the mind/matter duality is a construct of the human mind. What do you mean “material”? If you mean is there more to conscienceness, who knows? What is the material that my thoughts are made out of? we can’t answer any of these questions - we are our reality, there is nothing more that “we” can perceive of.[/quote]
i’m not speaking about “the very concept of the mind/matter duality” here.
You told us that “things” were “shaped” (and isolated) by the mind.
I simply try to understand the theory behind this metaphor.
There is basically two very different possibilities.
Either
-the mind shapes the things like an author write words on a blank page. IE : the mind CREATES things out of nothing. or out of itself (which is actually the same thing)
Or
-the mind shapes the things like a sculptor give shape to a stone block. (hence the word “material”).
And in this case, there is definitely something outside/before the activity of the mind, even if we always perceive through the “prism” of the mind.
In one case, objectivity is impossible, and all our discussions are meaningless. The debate stop right there.
In the other case, we can go to the next step and try to define this “something” that exist outside/before our concepts.
the first perspective is called “solipsism”. It’s an intellectual impasse, and the scrapyard of many bad philosophies. especially (post)modern ones.
the other is the first step of most consistent ontologies.
[/quote]
OK. I didn’t know that, I’d seen the term solipsism before but never really understood what it was, will go look it up. It sounds similar to nihilism, which I think is the position that there is no meaning in anything?
I have to say, I am starting to enjoy this thread (also thinking back to the epistomology thread), although it does feel slightly like everyone is beatring around the bush and kind of just teasing, although I’m finding it quite interesting.
Of the top of my head, I don’t think a lack of objectivity equals meaningless. I think this is quite a big hole in a lot of the arguments here. Subjectivity does equal opinion and an impossibility to actually say anything or know anything meaningful.
Silee, I think you said “your truth, my truth”. I think you are assuming an extreme version of my position. All humans follow the same logic, it a subjective set of laws that only work within the framework of human cognition but it suffices for our purposes.
When people here talk about an objective reality, absolute knowledge, what does this really meaN? objecitivyt requires an absolute perspective, I can certainly see how the God that theological religons teach would fulfil this role, BY DEFINITION, but how can anything have this status? Unless we are talking about the totality of all there is, there will always be something else besides what we are talking about, and therefore, no thing can be objective. Only the totality of all existence can be “objective”.
I think a degree of objectivity is all that is required. As long as the laws or knowlege we know is objective with respect to all things that we interact with, then there is consistency, which is all I think a conscience mind can acheive and all that is required. It’s possible there is more than one mode of being, of perception. There doest HAVE to be some uniting force or being, I’m not sure what the grounds are for such a position?
Kamui - the way you talk about the mind acting on somrething or creatring itself = I still think you are imposing a duality that may not exist in all realities. maybe this is all my mind, but perhaps my mind is made of something more solid than matter…
I think positing a final cause, be it God or just existince itself is just neatly sidestepping the issues we are discussing.
I would like to ask Tribulus and Brother Chris - WHY do you believe in God? Your various logical/reasoning based arguments are interestingt but none of them actually give grounds to postively believe in a theological god like the one you believe in. Is there an element of settling on the “best” position, do you really care about these philsophical arguments or are they to counter laughing and pointing atheists (who can be incredibly offensive and obnoxious, I really dislike Richard Dawkins, ok, you dont respect religon, how about respecting your fellow human being???)