The Pathos of Distance

THIS IS AN ANNOYING LOG-IN POP UP JUST FOR YOU
The Pathos of Distance

- Agile Minds in Perpetuum -


    Idealism vs Realism

    Share
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 761
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Idealism vs Realism

    Post by Satyr on Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:44 pm

    Primitive mind confuses its own abstraction for the real.
    The reality of the representation in their head for the phenomenon outside their head.
    They confuse thir own projections of motive, for a force governing the world.  

    What is more interesting is that to think of existence form the inside, they must project themselves into the non-existent....another abstraction.
    Then they cannot understand how or why the theoretical whole is contradicted by its experienced parts - how the noetic singularity is contradicted by phenomenal multiplicity.

    In each case the noumenon is taken as a starting point, above, beyond, underneath, nowhere to be perceived but only thought.
    Humanity needs to do a lot of maturing before the dis-ease is made innocuous.
    Perhaps, like the overman, it is an idea(l) that can never be attained but only approached.
    Sort of like how the 'eternal recurrence' was a Hindu idea used, by him, to test the life we are living.
    'How would you feel about the life you are currently living if you knew that you had to relive it over and over again?' Motivation, no?
    That Nietzsche was a psychologist, but nothing special otherwise.....derivatives, updated for a dying race.
    He gives us insights into man, politics and spirituality.... nothing more....all things human, all too human.


    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 761
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Idealism vs Realism

    Post by Satyr on Sun Mar 18, 2018 6:01 am

    Nihilism places the noetic idea, above, before, the perceived phenomenon.
    Realism and paganism places the perceived phenomenon, above, before, the noetic idea.

    World is a construct of the mind, an idea, or world is the foundation of the idea, challenging/confronting them mind.


    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 761
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Idealism vs Realism

    Post by Satyr on Mon Mar 19, 2018 6:12 am

    To fabricate the noetic absolute whole, indivisible, immutable, the mind projects itself "outside" existence either as an idealized version of the self, human, named God, or as the self itself.
    From the imaginary vantage point 'outside' existence, the idealistic non-existent, existence can now be noetically 'perceived' as a whole, a one...but from within existence there is no such absolute, but its reverse, there is only multiplicity.
    The Top<>Down emoting places 'top' 'outside' existence, in the non-existent, which then contradicts the existent....like duh.
    Again....the noumenon is the only place where the absolute exists, or can ever exist. The word refers to the abstraction in the mind and to no-thing else.

    Is God man's creation, or is man God's creation?
    Is the term 'god' used to represent forces IN nature, or does it represent a beyond, beneath, above nature....nature as a whole that contradicts the experience of nature.
    The idea(l) is a noetic construct.
    The real is what is independent from the mind and interactions with it are how the mind fabricates the idea(l) - a reaction to the real produces the idea(l).
    Idea(l) IS the interpretation of the real - either as a representation (art), or as a representation of the reaction (fArt)...corresponding to Realism and Nihilism, if the representation is taken literally.
    Nihilism is the use of the idea(l) to negate the real....the mental fabrication usurping, in theory, the experienced world.

    Projecting into some fantasy realm the 'self' is the only way to construct this Idealistic contradiction to the Real - 'absolute' contradicting process, 'one' contradicting multiplicity.
    Projecting into phenomena a noetic construct and then justifying it by using nonsensical linguistics, is what it's all about. Language to impress, to mystify, to manipulate....to exploit.
    The only way Nihilistic ideals can be placed in the world is via are....which language is one. For Nihilists language is magical, powerful because their ideas do not exist outside the mind and cannot have an effect without words/symbols.
    Humanity IS World...making philosophy nothing more than politics, manipulating psychology through semiotics.

    The mind sees itself reflected back because it is doing the projecting.
    It sees its constructs everywhere....but instead of realizing they are its own constructs it begins to believe they exist independently.


    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 761
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Idealism vs Realism

    Post by Satyr on Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:13 am

    The clearest indication of understanding is the ability to simplify what is complex, so that individuals with a lower IQ can understand.
    Understanding is expressed in an ability to describe what is understand in multiple ways, clearly and honestly.

    Understanding itself, is the discovery of a pattern governing all patterns involved in a unity, or in an interactivity.
    Knowing is the reduction of phenomenon to an abstraction = simplification/generalization.
    Understanding is the reduction of said abstractions to a unifying concept.

    This simplification/generalization is not a loss but a gain.
    By simplifying/generalizing one can connect multiple such simplification/generalizations into larger mental models.

    Such abstractions can be tested, against the world using the three methods I described elsewhere.


    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 761
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Idealism vs Realism

    Post by Satyr on Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:13 am

    Objectivity means you attempt, when possible, to connect the dictionary definition of a word, the conventional meaning ascribed to a symbol, with a phenomenon, in the world.
    You connect, using semiotics, the noumenon with the phenomenon.
    You relate, the subjective interpretation of reality, with the object of interest, the objective, the world.

    This is what I mean by bringing it 'down to earth' and objectivity.

    The desire to dismiss all such attempts, because you prefer that those particular words remain vague, idealistic, and easily ridiculed, or to use this detachment to justify any hypothesis, is founded on an ulterior motive, and a lack of integrity - cowardice, and shameless hypocrisy.


    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 761
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Idealism vs Realism

    Post by Satyr on Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:14 am

    ---A theory has to be observable by all. It has to be available to everyone for validation, testing.
    Placing the justification in an internal, esoteric, private realm, is an easy way to evade this necessity.
    Then all you are bound by is self-consistency and, if you wish to add external validation, it must be seductive, pleasing, promising, hopeful....positive, to as many minds as possible.
    The theory compensates for a lack of external references with a multiplicity of followers, believers, creating an echo-chamber of inter-subjectivity. Each believer using his own personal feelings, interests to justify the same theory independently from all others.
    The theory, the ideal, becomes a focal point - a world on its own. It replaces the observable, indifferent, shared world with a web of internally self-consistent abstractions, once a few basic presumptions have been establishes as self-evident.

    ---A theory must provide the possibility for prediction, or it has to have a utility - it has to be applied.
    This is in correlation to the previous.
    It is a reaction to the first.
    The theory may or may not offer its own implied reactions, methods of dealing with what is exposed as common, as observable by all.
    This is not necessary because each individual is unique in his attributes, and motives.
    What works for one, may not work as well for another, and what one desires may be a secondary desire for another.
    The theory provides the framework within which individuals, or categories of psychologies, can determine and place into action their own reaction to what is revealed.

    ---A theory must be independent from any one individual.
    The most objective theories are the ones that would hold true even if there were nobody present to know and understand them.
    A theory's dependence of minds to be convinced, to follow, to appreciate, to acknowledge, to believe, are not objective.
    The standard is external to the particular individual, so that each holds himself accountable to it, independently from everyone else.
    A theory describing something that can be ignored, or dismissed with no consequences, demanding that one acknowledge it before it has an effect, is not philosophy...it is sophistry.

    ---A theory ought not to require specialized language, or experts to be understood and validated by an average mind.
    If it describes and defines something in a shared reality, an average intelligence can comprehend and validate it on its own.
    The term 'revealing', or the Greek term 'aletheia', -un-forget...implies something all can see, and know, but have forgotten.
    It is not the world that has concealed itself but they have concealed the world from themselves, or it is some other mind, or collective, that has placed it in concealment. The un-covering, is experienced as a revelation, a clarity, unveiling, of what has always been present.
    The awakening mind feels like he or she has always known what it is being exposed to.
    Understanding is finding patterns in the patterns, data - connecting relationships.
    A teacher may reveal these connections to a student that could not, but when the connections are revealed the student wonders why it could not see what was always before its eyes.


    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 761
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Idealism vs Realism

    Post by Satyr on Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:14 am

    Philosophy is to symbols/words what a painter is to shapes and colours.
    A philosopher is an artist using language.

    A painter, when he wants to paint a tree, sits down in a park, or a forest, and paints one directly, or uses his vast experience with trees, in their many forms and hues, to then represent one, from memory, sitting in his den.
    His talent, his eye for details, is represented in the painting, which all can appreciate, given that all have experienced, have personally seen trees.

    A nihilist, splashes some random colours on a canvas and calls it "a tree", daring anyone to say that it isn't, because he wishes he were an artist but has no talent for it...or he copies a painting of a tree that was once highly appreciated, and often mentioned as a beautiful depiction of a tree, by a very talented artist, only altering the shapes, and colours, to hide his forgery, or he combines two, or three different paintings of trees, altering, again, their shapes and colours to hide his forgery.
    The outcome looks surreal, not real, because in his haste to replicate the appreciation, the fame and fortune, the accolades and acknowledgement, he copied and presented a caricature of a tree, that looks nothing like any tree ever experienced, by anyone.
    He then gathers his cronies, who he has sold on the depth of meaning his painting has, and cultivates the myth of his own talent, by implying that whoever does not see the perfect depiction of treeness in his caricature is unsophisticated, or not worthy of his "art".
    He may even claim that trees are internal concepts, and that his painting of a caricature of a tree promises far more than any real tree can ever promise. The idea of a tree being preferable to an actual tree.

    Then, there's the cynic, who seeing a realistic painting of a tree, questions its veracity by asking for evidence that green is the colour most trees have, or demanding a definition of 'greeness', and why we see green when colour is subjective.
    He wants to hide his lack of talent, or his fear of reality, in an unending pseudo-intellectual skepticism that can never go anywhere because it does not even begin from the observed, from the obvious.
    He becomes, conveniently, stuck in semantics and doubting his own senses.
    He wants to settle on there being no such thing as trees, and so no way to know if they are really green or not.
    He does not want to discuss a general greeness most trees have, and then proceed as to why and how, but demands to begin with trees that may not be green at all, but red....or purple....or orange.
    A ploy, for he doesn't really want to know why most trees are green, he only wants to not validate any depiction of trees, and their treeness, fearing he will also be so easily perceived and depicted.
    He declares trees to be more than their appearance....and that any painting of a tree cannot possibly hope to depict the essence of treeness...nothing can compare to the idealized tree, the perfect, absolute tree.
    What's the value of a tree anyhow?
    Who's to say which painting of a tree is more accurate?
    Maybe a line with some dots on paper is better.
    Who's to know?


    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 761
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Idealism vs Realism

    Post by Satyr on Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:17 am



    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 761
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Idealism vs Realism

    Post by Satyr on Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:33 am

    With every population growth the median drops, and with every drop language has to adjust, replacing more clear and direct expression with more vague insinuating metaphors.
    The objective is buried in subjectivity, and language becomes pretentious and mystical.


    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 761
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Idealism vs Realism

    Post by Satyr on Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:37 am

    Ancient superstitions are hidden within long, winding sentences, intersperses, like minefields, with modernistic emotional triggers, and dressed-up in pseudo-intellectual scientific jargon.
    Its intended audience seeks legitimization of nonsense, and they provide a product carefully packed and packaged.


    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 761
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Idealism vs Realism

    Post by Satyr on Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:40 am

    Metaphysics is often mistaken for idealism and idealism for metaphysics by those who have neurologically inverted the relationships and obscured their divisions.
    In brief - idealism is what inverts and makes intentional 'mistakes', presenting its ideals as occult truisms, bubbling out of subterranean depths, when all they are is their hopes masked as wisdom, and the insecure reactions to world masked as the world in-itself.

    Humanity becomes world and man replaces god as 'world' creator.


    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 761
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Idealism vs Realism

    Post by Satyr on Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:45 am

    With no god men begin worshipping other men with the same fervour.
    Idealism replaces superstition, and, in accordance with natural selection, some separate from the throng, dominating their inferiors, declaring themselves gods, or earthly representations of the divine, and the rest worship it through him.
    Intelligence has always seemed divine to those who do not possess it.
    The superior can understand the inferior, but the inferior can only feel superiority like a mysterious godly presence, and a powerful magical force.

    Devout followers, and passionate believers, can be found among those that call themselves atheist.
    Scripture believers can be found among those who have replaced the Bible with a new text.

    There are leaders and there are followers, one needing the other.
    The leaders want to worship themselves through others, and the followers, having no immediate reference point to guide them, and no courage to stand alone, need an idol and an icon to direct their wills and to comfort their fears.


    _________________
    Know Thyself

    Sponsored content

    Re: Idealism vs Realism

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:13 pm