Life in a nutshell

[maxx]

I believe, in the long run, it comes down to friendship and love. This is why it can also often seem that "Hell is other people." I add to that "Hell is the impossibility of reason."

 

[retrogasm]

Thank you atSkywalker, that certainly clears it up for me. And I'm now officially uncomfortable :wink:
Considering that we're then no longer in the realms of either philosophy or sociology, but instead morals, I'll bow out. I doubt the forum would benefit from taking this any further.

 

[atskywalker]

@retrogasm. Agreed. I began all of this with the assumption that Pipe smokers are gentlemen (and women) and everyone here regardless of their convictions or philosophy continues to prove that including your fine self :: Such conversations can devolve so fast in other "worlds" and there was non of that here.
To me, this thread was incredibly refreshing and rewarding.

 

[elbert]

Very true. We are slowly drifting away from reality.

If five men sitting in a room each hold a contradicting opinion about what's real, when are they closer to "reality"; when each man claims his position with certainty, to the exclusion of all others--or when each man admits doubt about his own thinking, and agrees to approach it skeptically?
If the Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant is an accurate reflection of the limitation of human thought, then we're not drifting away from reality; we're drifting ever closer to a better understanding of it. It's important to draw wisdom from many sources.
By the by, that parable is over three thousand years old. So 'post-modern' doesn't quite do.

 

[seacaptain]

Very true. We are slowly drifting away from reality.

Yep. Even objective truth about something as simple and concrete as male and female has been trampled to death by post modern society. Each person can decide for themselves what gender they want to be and no one is allowed to object.

 

[elbert]

@retrogasm and atskywalker;
My apologies, gentlemen--I was typing, or else I would have observed the 'cease-fire'. Interesting thread, at any rate!

 

[seacaptain]

If five men sitting in a room each hold a contradicting opinion about what's real, when are they closer to "reality"; when each man claims his position with certainty, to the exclusion of all others--or when each man admits doubt about his own thinking, and agrees to approach it skeptically?
If the Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant is an accurate reflection of the limitation of human thought, then we're not drifting away from reality; we're drifting ever closer to a better understanding of it. It's important to draw wisdom from many sources.
By the by, that parable is over three thousand years old. So 'post-modern' doesn't quite do.

I think you misunderstood. Objective truth still existed, i.e it was an elephant, not what each person perceived it to be. It was a parable about man's ignorance of revealed truth. That's definitely pre-modern in thought and application.
Had that been a parable from a post-modern perspective, the men would not be portrayed as blind (ignorant of truth). They would have each been correct in their determination of what the "elephant" was, maybe even questioning the existence of elephants, at least certainly scoffing at anyone who told them it was an elephant and could be nothing else but an elephant. They would each walk away "knowing" what the object was (to them), not in blindness of the truth, but as enlightened men who can determine their own reality.

 

[atskywalker]

@elbert... There's no "cease-fire". You're last salvo was fine indeed so we'll resume the battle albeit in a new frontier ::

If the Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant is an accurate reflection of the limitation of human thought, then we're not drifting away from reality; we're drifting ever closer to a better understanding of it. It's important to draw wisdom from many sources.

The parable is very good. The issue I have with "Post-Modern" is the lack of appreciation for the objective existence of the elephant itself. While I may only be exposed to the trunk the truth of the elephant is still out there. Only by accepting that my truth maybe at best partial or even wrong and that collaborating with others who may have been exposed to other parts of the proverbial elephant is the only path to a more foundational sound truth - I can make progress. The approach of "I have my truth, you have yours, and never mind the difference" is whats problematic. The differences are very important in a more integral truth finding mission.

 

[atskywalker]

@seacaptain you said it better than me my brother. +1

 

[maxx]

I'm fascinated with how people might confuse cultural mores for moral truth.

 

[iamn8]

If my life was in a nutshell I'd want it to be a pistachio.

 

[newbroom]

The love you take is equal to the love you make.

 

[elbert]

But when you hear the Parable of the Elephant, you're not meant to haughtily conclude (as every single one of us would like to) that you're the sighted man watching this all go down, and everyone else is the blind men groping the beast. From the point of view of the parable-maker, we're all blind. I suppose you're right to say that you could read the parable as a comforting assurance that objective truth does exist, but it seems far more instructive (indeed, far more difficult) to read it as a challenge to intellectual arrogance. Because the next question that follows is this; what good is objective truth if no two people can agree what it is?
Socrates (or Plato, if you prefer) brings up a variation of the same question in Euthyphro, and fails to come up with an answer. I still don't think anyone has answered it, really.
I guess my response is that learning to live with the question is perhaps healthier than accepting what might, in the last analysis, be a bad answer.
Thank you for the discussion!

 

[seacaptain]

Because the next question that follows is this; what good is objective truth if no two people can agree what it is?

Because if it exists, then it can be known. Whether through revelation (pre-modern view), or reason (modern view).
People disagreeing about it is irrelevant. Maybe they're both wrong. The point being that someone else who does know can show them something objective.
Post modern thought already assumes that the answer can't be known, so there's no point in trying to figure it out. The answer for them is - Let everyone determine their own "truth".

 

[deathmetal]

The point being that someone else who does know can show them something objective.

Reality -- it's out there.

 

[drwatson]

If my life was in a nutshell I'd want it to be a pistachio

Half Cracked??
I miss red pistachios.

 

[aggravatedfarmer]

I'd say that the original poster's question depends on the person. To some its "get rich or die trying" others "you get what you give." This is a question of individuality. "Life is a journey." Others are more "f*ck it, I quit."

 

[seacaptain]

Others are more "f*ck it, I quit."

I saw that guy. He was on the corner with a sign that said "Will work for food". Funny though, he didn't want to work and he didn't want food. He just wanted me to give him money. False advertising if you ask me.

 

[elbert]

Because if it exists, then it can be known.

I just don't see how that can be regarded as anything other than a bare assertion. You're proposing revelation and/or reason as solutions to the problem of the limitations of human knowledge--but they can't be, because they are expressly involved in the limitations of human knowledge.
Anyhow, I sense that we're talking past each other, so here's my last, from Heisenberg;

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning."

Nature here could be reality, truth, God, Tao, dharma, chi, etc.
I had to look up red pistachios...what an odd story!
-Edited to fix an error.

 

[seacaptain]

Anyhow, I sense that we're talking past each other,

I don't think we're talking past each other. I understand exactly where you're coming from. You have a post-modern world view and are speaking from that perspective.

I just don't see how that can be regarded as anything other than a bare assertion. You're proposing revelation and/or reason as solutions to the problem of the limitations of human knowledge--but they can't be, because they are expressly involved in the limitations of human knowledge.

You're right in that to a degree, knowledge by reason can be limited because a persons reason is filtered through an existing world view. Reason in the traditional modern, enlightenment era, worldview was coupled and filtered by scientific proof. Reason has been completely discarded and "science" is now filtered through post modern thought. But that's a separate discussion.
Not so with revelation though. That's something entirely outside and independent from ourselves.