09-24-2014, 10:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-24-2014, 11:14 AM by SunlitDoves.)
Account1: I really like how you provide thoughtful skepticism.
I am not implying I disagree or agree with your philosophy. However, what I've noticed throughout my lifetime is that people are very capable of creating analytical, intellectual, persuasive arguments to support many ideas and perspectives. The argument can be convincing and true enough, but that doesn't make it true.
Ex. I remember in sociology class having to read an entry about letting poor people die off to ultimately help poverty. The argument was very persuasive, yet that doesn't make it ethical. That doesn't mean it is right to the human condition.
Ex. Aristotle: frogs come from mud
You certainly make good points, but at some time in approaching truth the human intellect isn't reliable with solely itself. Direct experience of this phenomena is the only beginning to seeing truth in the phenomena. All else is just wishful thinking of the intellect. All else is just the intellect trying to persuade itself that it has a grasp over the matter. Something else that I consider a necessity that you can attribute to a mystical approach or a scientific approach is higher functionings of the mind such as intuition. Heartfelt experience can be beneficial as well.
I thank you for real counterpoints. I hardly see that.
"the only thing I can be sure of is that the mind is capable of far more than most of humanity and myself can imagine"
There are many unfounded treasures to be found within awareness. I accept the mystery. I realize that reality isn't what philosophizing says it is and it is certainly not what science says it is. Although both can be slightly right at their best.
I say real believing produces a less real experience than real knowing.
I am not implying I disagree or agree with your philosophy. However, what I've noticed throughout my lifetime is that people are very capable of creating analytical, intellectual, persuasive arguments to support many ideas and perspectives. The argument can be convincing and true enough, but that doesn't make it true.
Ex. I remember in sociology class having to read an entry about letting poor people die off to ultimately help poverty. The argument was very persuasive, yet that doesn't make it ethical. That doesn't mean it is right to the human condition.
Ex. Aristotle: frogs come from mud
You certainly make good points, but at some time in approaching truth the human intellect isn't reliable with solely itself. Direct experience of this phenomena is the only beginning to seeing truth in the phenomena. All else is just wishful thinking of the intellect. All else is just the intellect trying to persuade itself that it has a grasp over the matter. Something else that I consider a necessity that you can attribute to a mystical approach or a scientific approach is higher functionings of the mind such as intuition. Heartfelt experience can be beneficial as well.
I thank you for real counterpoints. I hardly see that.
"the only thing I can be sure of is that the mind is capable of far more than most of humanity and myself can imagine"
There are many unfounded treasures to be found within awareness. I accept the mystery. I realize that reality isn't what philosophizing says it is and it is certainly not what science says it is. Although both can be slightly right at their best.
I say real believing produces a less real experience than real knowing.