All knowledge must be based in experience.




NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 18^th, 2016 at 12:28pm:




'absolute truth' eh!

Lets play.      



Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1325206797/10#10
Quote:



But,      ....and again,         .....we all live through differing experiences!!!!!

So your truth, is valid for yourself.

And then, what is truth for myself, may differ from what is truth for you.

No ?



But its the journey [which is important] no ?

i.e.
How we react, to what we see/find along our path.

i.e.
Every choice we make, may take us down a different path.

And in 'the end', we will find ourselves,         ....at a very specific 'destination'.


Yadda said.....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1454219198/4#4
Quote:

If that is so; Yadda has a lot of experience with the back of public toilet doors where he acquires his knowledge.

Yadda wrote on Dec 18^th, 2016 at 2:55pm:


are true?

Yadda, you are truly lord of the flies and you have a proclivity for public porcelain.

So Yadda, I read your attempts to express your idea of experience and truth. You probably know by now, were I stand, in that area.

Can you explain why you bother with the quotes from scripture? You cannot support philosophical arguments with dogma. Perhaps you are trying verify your faith with other believers. But the quotes have no effect on the rest of us.

Philosophy is written by plain men, not by prophets and priests. Philosophy is held up, for scrutiny and consideration of its value against the trial of experience. That is not the purpose of scripture, which is to set out rules. No philosopher of intellect would make such demands.

Any discussion of philosophy, and this forum should be such, is made by philosophers. You don't need credentials.

What Scripture means to you, is one thing. The purpose of quoting it here, is another. You seem to be saying that you quote it for your own appreciation, which seems odd, because you could just read it to yourself, and interject yeah, and forsooth.

Its common for God botherers to quote scripture as if these mighty words will suddenly flash their brilliance in the minds of the audience. Its called preaching, and doesn't have much effect on those who don't particularly care. So, if that is your intention, you are wasting your time.

To quote you,

"To my mind....
Rules mean boundaries.
No rules, mean no boundaries.            [...to my mind]
I don't want to live in a society of men, where there are no boundaries."

Very few people want to live without rules, if the effect disadvantages them. You seem to infer that scripture should be the basis of the rules. You could just state that in the beginning and call for a religious constitution.

Right of the top of my head, I cannot think of any philosopher who would have had the temerity to offer this to a forum on philosophy:

Yadda: [a solution for yourself, would be, to simply pass over, and do not examine the contents of my posts]

Its another example of your unphilosophical attitude. What are trying to do, preach to the converted?

You need a hobby.

Knowledge requires complex language to express same
Complex language requires a genetic predisposition, switched on at a crucial period in a child's development.

Therefore, all knowledge is not based on experience.

Nom de Plume wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 7:27pm:


Ah......so.........I reckon I have nailed it.  Sappho?

We are social animals, who share knowledge which in turn informs our collective conscientious as expressed though books, for example. Knowledge shared can then be tested.

There are two kinds of knowledge of which we are aware; rational, which is derived from our thoughts, and empirical, which is derived from the external world of experience.

Both kinds of knowledge rely on each other for validation and language is the means by which that is done.

Have you ever tried to think without using words?

unrelated, but what i felt moved to post......



Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.
    - Winston Churchill


The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. Ignorance may deride it. But in the end, there it is.
    - Winston Churchill


A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.
    - Arthur C. Clarke


"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."
- Anonymous


"When truth cannot make itself known in words, it will make itself known in deeds."
- Roger Scruton


It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.
   - Giordano Bruno (1548- burned at the stake, 1600)


"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell            [even if this quote is mis-attributed to Orwell, the pursuit of truth remains a great virtue]



Why It's Called Made In America

Principles to Live By - 1942
1.  You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2.  You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
3.  You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4.  You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5.  You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
6.  You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7.  You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8.  You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9.  You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10  You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

William J. H. Boetcker, Presbyterian minister, 1942 Source: TruthOrFiction
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/l/lincoln-quotes.htm

Nom de Plume wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 3:07pm:



It is words and logic and reason,           which can motivate us to propose [i.e. to communicate] a hypothesis [about 'something'] which does not align with the current 'collective intelligence' of the 'collective consciousness' of our social group.

But having the ability to conceive of a new 'knowledge' or a new idea,       and even having the ability to adequately express new ideas and concepts,        does not ensure the ready acceptance of those new ideas or concepts, among our contemporaries.

Because those who have already well established personal 'interests', in existing stable 'political' power structures,        will likely oppose the consideration of any 'radical' new idea,       even within areas of arcane scientific research or discovery.

'Revolutionaries' are rarely welcomed, by those who have a personal interest in maintaining the current status quo.





Quote:
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/375663920/the-doctor-who-cha...

Nom de Plume wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 3:07pm:

We are IN language. Language is the house of being and we dwell in it.
We cannot be outside language to use it as a tool. Who/what is the agency that is using language, one that is supra-linguistic?

The conscious is the agent. Self awareness defines us.

Yadda wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 10:13pm:



'Define us' is a bit strong, I think, because it attributes agency (define is a transitive verb and all transitive verbs posit an agent who does the acting upon the subject. Nontransitive verbs just do or are.)

Language is very interesting and reveals more about its inhabitant ('user') than he knows he is revealing.

Elision is one of my favorites - what is not said - because it doesn't need to be said - but is understood by the inhabitants of the language. Newcomers to the linguistic community do not perceive this dimension of language - what is not said because it doesn't need to be because it is understood by all who inhabit the language - so we have the Yassmin's of the world who are not aware that appending Syria an Palestine to 'Lest we forget' is a major faux pas.


To some extent - SOME - multiculturalism fails because it fragments an compartmentalises what used to be a community that dwelled in the same language - ie imaginative landscape and communicable life.

A commonly held view on the right is that Multiculturalism has failed because one religious culture rejects its concept. That is not the the failure of multiculturalism.

Frank wrote on May 3^rd, 2017 at 6:36pm:


Awareness is to consciousness as unawareness is to unconsciousness. 'The conscious is the agent.'; I intended for the sentence, was to be  to be so restricted as to identify that feeling of 'me-ness ' that  differentiates between you and me.

Most often we exist unconsciously, relying on our autopilot to engage with the world. Our autopilot does nor require language. For example, Wittgenstein was  not aware of the bike he was riding or the navigational skills he was applying. He was engaged with proofs required to support his hypotheses which were made invalid upon receiving 'the bird'.

We spend a great portion of our life on autopilot.

Nom de Plume wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 10:56am:




'Awareness is to consciousness as unawareness is to unconsciousness.'


Or perhaps;
Awareness is to consciousness as 'unawareness' is to subconscious-ness.  ???

Yet on some level, the 'realm' of the subconscious is still 'present',      Q. isn't it ?

Q.
Is       our        subconscious [or the 'autopilot'] similar to the relationship between a servant, and its master ?

i.e.
The 'master' being the conscious awareness [of our 'being'] ?

And, while the 'master' is not always 'directly aware' nor directly 'overseeing' the tasks which his/her servant may be engaged in,          the 'master' has the ability to take personal charge [or 'give directions'] at any moment ?




A little more;

'Unconsciousness' is still a 'tricky' concept - for human 'sciences' and for human areas of psychological exploration, imo.

e.g.
When we recline and 'go to sleep', we usually enter a period of 'unconscious-ness'.

But i myself, and many others, have experienced the 'state of mind' [during a period of what we refer to as 'sleep'], where i have regained my conscious awareness [i.e. while my body was still immobilised/'unconscious'].
[on some occasions, even retaining my  conscious awareness, fully, from the time i recline, through until my body becomes fully 'immobilised'.     and that is not a wholly uncommon experience for many people        Paul gives an account [with very little detail], 'out-of-body' conscious awareness.  2 Corinthians 12:2-3]



Q.
When i am 1/ [actually] awake, and 2/ 'in my body',        what is it [what 'facility' is it!!], that actually 'motivates' my physical body ?

I certainly do not know!

But i certainly believe, that that 'facility',       the 'facility' that actually 'motivates' my physical body is NOT NECESSARILY 'my' 'consciousness' !   i.e. not directly!

To my 'mind', to my understanding,           there is some other [unidentified] 'agency', which enables my own 'consciousness' to 'engage', with what actually 'motivates' my physical body.


It is an exhilarating thought/idea!

In the same way, that the experience of being 'out of my body' and yet being fully conscious, is exhilarating !

'off topic'

hmmmmm,   what do those words mean ?

[Yadda plays dumb]





[De Plume, i am a notorious OT poster here.    Sorry.         ]

Yadda wrote on May 4^th, 2017 at 8:21am:


What does multiculturalism contradict? You're subsequent paragraphs do not explain any contradiction.

In my view, multiculturalism suffers from the lack of definition. It started out with the idea that the cultures would be assimilated by western societies as they became more tolerant. When that did not work, a separate but equal philosophy began to emerge, but the same lack of universally acknowledged definition remains.

References to Indonesia and Malaysia often cite a multicultural foundation to their post colonial statehood, but the dominant Islamic culture dictates the laws. viz, the idea that a person can be prosecuted for blasphemy. That is not a contradiction or failure. Its a lack of definition. Its all too vague.
Nonethenless, the idea that a state can be home to several cultures and live in peace is not faulty because pig-headed people would rather fester in their own brand of ignorance.

Yadda wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 2:18am:




For example France;

France is a large and important nation, in Western Europe.

Until very recently, i would argue that, France could have been described as a nation in Western Europe which was;
1/ WEALTHY,       2/ PROSPEROUS,        and 3/ POLITICALLY STABLE.


I would argue that while France [as a nation in Western Europe], can still be described as a WEALTHY nation,
France is no longer a PROSPEROUS nation,
and France is no longer a POLITICALLY STABLE nation.

And i would argue that the loss of that PROSPERITY and POLITICAL STABILITY in France, can be directly attributed to France's 'wholehearted', and uncritical, embrace of 'multiculturalism'.

And, imo, the situation in France is only going to get much, much worse.


n.b.
This morning, the news that Macron has just been elected President of France.

Is anyone brave enough to argue that after this latest election in France, of another 'multiculturalist',
that now, all of the problems caused by 'multiculturalism', within France, are now going to be solved, by the election [to president of France] of another pro-'multiculturalist' ?

Yadda, I don't know where you live or how old you are, but I clearly remember Australia as a monoculture. It was so dull and intellectually stultifying that anyone, who could, got f#ck out of the place as soon as they could scrape together the fare. The food was Anglo-Australian, the worst of both worlds. Coffee was instant, and you got weird looks if you didn't drink tea or beer. The clothes were dreadful and badly made, and you were expected to conform to the lowest common denominator, which was like being immersed in the football and horse racing crowd.

issuevoter wrote on May 8^th, 2017 at 8:30pm:



issue,

The facility of now having access to kebab shops, imo,       isn't worth the 'trade-off', in having to suffer the proximity of 'ISLAMICS'.      !!!!

Raven wrote on May 9^th, 2017 at 3:01am:



Really !

You are joshing me, right ?

Coz i honestly thought that all of the kebab shops in Australia, were owned by either Mustafa or Abdulla.






.




ISLAMIC LAW TEXT....
"Ibn 'Umar related that the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, said, "I have been ordered to kill the people until they testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay the zakah. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me save by the rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah." (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.) "
fiqhussunnah/fus1_06





.




IMAGE...







.





IMAGE...




n.b.   .....NOT WORSHIPING ALLAH, IS 'INSULTING' ISLAM.     .....SO OFF WITH YOUR HEAD !

Nom de Plume wrote on May 7^th, 2017 at 10:12am:


Jung was definitely a mystic. Freud was probably more of a naturalist. However, he does use Ancient Greek terms, such as Eros and Thanatos, to describe human drives, which were mystical in Ancient Greece. Despite that, Freud does try to explain the psyche through experience/self reflection. 

Justsayno wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 3:48pm:


Well . . . if it wasn't known, it would not be knowledge. But if you are going to try to get all mystical about it, I would file it under C for crap.

If you mean Prior(i) knowledge, that's way too vague.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_APriori.html

When we discuss "knowledge", what do we mean?

I'm inclined to think it's subjective.

Yadda wrote on Nov 7^th, 2017 at 11:57am:


Your hands are an extention of your brain. Damage to the brain and your hands may be not so co-operative.

Yadda wrote on Nov 7^th, 2017 at 11:57am:

You understand your impact on others and in the world, I suppose!

Nom de Plume wrote on Nov 7^th, 2017 at 12:54pm:



I should also add, that your spinal cord is included as part of the brain.

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 20^th, 2017 at 11:15am:



I spent 30 minutes composing a reasoned response to your propositions.

and then i decided to delete it.
i have no definitive proofs to offer you and yours.


Believe whatever you want to believe.

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 20^th, 2017 at 3:55pm:
'

Proof? Well, I don't know, but I do know you don't need proof if arguing with people who don't use proof.

Jasin wrote on Nov 20^th, 2017 at 6:24pm:


I'm inclined to agree there is no afterlife. Life is tenacious as all get out. The survival imperative is number one. Associated with these facts of life is the sense of importance we attach to ourselves. Many people have a very hard time dying. The idea we, this thing of ultimate importance, actually comes to an end is fairly easy to accept when you are young and health, but when closing in on the last days and hours, some people have a very hard time. That is where the promises of an afterlife come in. Remember, most people are simple mind when it comes to profound thought.

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 20^th, 2017 at 11:15am:



You speculate about the consequences of head injury or brain damage, upon the personality of individuals.

But we know very little about ourselves.

We know very little about the nature of the reality that we find ourselves experiencing.

And despite the advances in mankind's sciences, we know very little even about our bodies, and about the function and capabilities of our brain, and other organs in our body.

The only thing [we believe that] we know, is that while we are 'alive' in what are 'clay houses', we seem to have a sense of self awareness.

An 'awareness', of our own individual consciousness, and a very limited awareness of our immediate surroundings.

But we have no certainty, about what our 'awareness' and existence here 'means'.

All of our human knowledge in such areas, is all, still, merely based upon our own suppositions.




You speak about the apparent 'massive changes in personality' as consquence of head injury or brain damage, and you speak,
as though it is certain that the brain is seat of an individuals personality.

Yes, the brain is a part of our body.

The brain as an organ, is an integral part,         ...of our body.

And yes, after some accident or disease, a damaged brain, to varying degrees, may not be able to send any normal motivating signals to other part of our body, as the brain previously did in its undamaged state.



1/ "brain injury.....can have massive changes in personality"

Nope.

No, i don't accept that that conclusion, is at all certain or proven.

ARGUMENT;
If after a brain injury, a person is unable to urinate normally,
is that demonstrable disability, proof of 'massive changes in personality' ?

Of course it isn't.


We use facilities that are a part of our body, in order to interact with each other, and in order to interact with the circumstances which we encounter in the world around us.

e.g.
Through the facility of our body,
we [use our body to] speak to those around us,
and we [use our body to] respond to those around us,
and we [use our body to] touch those who are around us,
and we [use our body to] embrace those around us,
and on, and on, and on.

But we ONLY do those things through the facility that our body gives to us, to do those things, within this physical realm.

If the functionality of those bodily 'facilities' is removed, due to 'brain damage', then yes, IT IS OUR BODY WHICH SHOWS THAT DISABILITY.
It is our body, which is unable to demonstrate the normal interaction with all of its physical surroundings.

And that consequent disability, is proof of how heavily we depend upon our physical bodies to accomplish 'normal' tasks, within this physical realm.



2/ "We are irretrievably tied to our physical bodies because without it, we would be completely different people"

No.

And what ?

Your argument is that if the brain or the physical body is destroyed then the personality of an individual will be irrevocably lost or changed ?


Though our physical body [in this world], is that 'thing' which makes us readily recognisable, as an individual, to those around us,
i would argue, that our physical body does not 'possess' any intimate connection, or influence, upon the essence of who we are.

i.e.
To our personality.

I would argue, that what we are, or, who we are,
is more properly 'defined', in the character, of our own, very individual 'personalities', rather than from influence of the body which we 'inhabit'.

e.g.
I could show you two people with different 'personalities', but two people with very, very similar bodies.

I would argue, that their individual personality and who they are cannot be defined, by the body which they each inhabit.


ARGUMENT;
Although one human body, has very many similarities with every other human body [excluding the aspect of gender],
and yet, our habits, as individuals, can be, extremely 'diverse'.

Why is that ?

I would argue, that the very individual personality of every individual, is intrinsically connected to our past experience, and to our individual beliefs [or 'knowledge'] [partly influenced by our experiences], and to our individual choices.


We are what we repeatedly do.
Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.
- Aristotle


"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."
- Professor Dumbledore
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets


"Glory follows virtue as if it were its shadow."
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Statesman

If in deed parallels in taste after an organ transplant can by confirmed, questions may be raised about tastes, but the heart or kidney is not the brain, and a taste for certain foods is hardly a spiritual matter.

As for ancient scripture, don't bore us.

More examples.....

.....coz issue, clearly isn't convinced yet.


Quote:
http://www.namahjournal.com/doc/Actual/Memory-transference-in-organ-transplant-r...




Google;
changes in heart transplant recipients, parallel the personalities of their donors

Google;
heart transplant recipients report strange changes

Yadda.
Your 'religious' outpourings are NOT philosophical.
Religion fails to be philosophical.
So why are you here in this section trying to ram down our throats something that is not tasteful to our needs here?
You are only making yourself a annoying and dare I say, skirting the line of being a Troll.

So unless you can express a sense of philosophical thinking, then please refrain from this section.

Of course, I'm sure you'll understand that the 'New Worlds will usher in a new religious expression to help raise the true Religion of the Middle-East and dispel the archaic Religions of the Old Worlds: Judaism, Mohommedism and of course - Christianity.
All three just representing Asia, Africa & Europe - but not the Middle-East itself.
But hey, you know this don't you   

To be fair to Yadda, there is no space on forum, to discuss Christianity, or Judaism, even though Islam, Atheism and Spiritualism are covered.   

Perhaps Yadda, you could run a members board.

I'm surprised none of the Christian clans-folk have raised this  mild injustice, as an issue.. previously.

As an aside, it surprises me that the pompous ass, Brian Ross never picked it up... It took an atheist to notice.   

Nom de Plume wrote on Nov 21^st, 2017 at 11:33pm:


The Spirituality board is run as a Christian board. Perhaps they just [falsely] assume that spirituality = Christianity because all the other religions are wrong, only their one is the true religion.

Yadda wrote on Nov 21^st, 2017 at 11:45am:


No that is a physical change. Brain injury can cause both physical disabilities and mental disabilities.

Your argument is not relevant

Yadda wrote on Nov 21^st, 2017 at 11:45am:


We may be externally quite similar but it is the body's internal processes which are important. By definition you can't see the internal processes and you can't see the hormones which can have such an effect on our mood and personality.

Your argument is irrelevant