Three Periods of Western Philosophy
turtoni
periods: Ancient philosophy, Medieval philosophy, and Modern
philosophy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_philosophy
"Modern Philosophy traditionally begins with Rene Descartes and his
dictum "I think, therefore I am." In the early seventeenth century the
bulk of philosophy was dominated by Scholasticism: written by
theologians and drawing upon Plato, Aristotle, and early Church
writings. Descartes argued that many predominant Scholastic
metaphysical doctrines were meaningless or false. In short, he
proposed to begin philosophy from scratch. In his most important work,
Meditations on First Philosophy, he attempts just this, over six brief
essays. He tries to set aside as much as he possibly can of all his
beliefs, to determine what if anything he knows for certain. He finds
that he can doubt nearly everything: the reality of physical objects,
God, his memories, history, science, even math, but he cannot doubt
that he is, in fact, doubting. He knows what he is thinking about,
even if it is not true, and he knows that he is there thinking about
it. From this basis he builds his knowledge back up again. He finds
that some of the ideas he has could not have originated from him
alone, but only from God; he proves that God exists. He then
demonstrates that God would not allow him to be systematically
deceived about everything; in essence, he vindicates ordinary methods
of science and reasoning, as fallible but not false."
Xarx
"turtoni" <tur...@fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:82a638c0-10e0-4cb3...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
The statement that some ideas originated from "God" would only apply if you
are a religious person. If Descartes had not been educated or had not read
the bible and had not had the concept OF a so called "God" - he may have
perceived that some ideas originate from "a source other than self".
How he would then perceive this source - would have been quite interesting -
as indeed it would be for many people who believe they are in contact with a
source other than self.
It is this knowledge or knowing that there IS a source other than self that
does lead one on to look and learn further. Not so much to learn of a Jewish
religious deity of a bible - but to learn of the vastness and intelligence
and beauty and Truth that does exist. It is when you do have an open mind
and are not contained and confined with the religious belief that you can
then perceive this source in a far wider sense. And then you can learn not
only of religion - but of religions - and space and time and matter and other
Gods and other intelligence and other dimensions and the spirit and mind and
so many other things.
Those that have only the biblical religious view and who interpret all with
respect and relative to the biblical religious view are those who really lose
out when they do determine - discover and know about the source other than
self.
Xarx of Borg
turtoni
"The major figures in philosophy of mind, epistemology, and
metaphysics during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are
roughly divided into two main groups. The "Rationalists," mostly in
France and Germany, assumed that all knowledge must begin from certain
"innate ideas" in the mind. Major Rationalists were Descartes,
Spinoza, Leibniz, and Nicolas Malebranche. The "Empiricists," by
contrast, held that knowledge must begin with sensory experience.
Major figures in this line of thought are Locke, Berkeley, and Hume.
(These are retrospective categories, for which Kant is largely
responsible; but they are not too inaccurate).
Ethics and political philosophy are usually not subsumed under these
categories, though all these philosophers worked in ethics. In their
own distinctive styles. Other important figures here are Hobbes and
Rousseau.
In the late eighteenth century Immanuel Kant set forth a
groundbreaking philosophical system which claimed to bring unity to
rationalism and empiricism. Whether or not he was right, he did not
entirely succeed in ending philosophical dispute. Kant sparked a storm
of philosophical work in Germany in the early nineteenth century. This
was German Idealism; its characteristic theme was that the world and
the mind equally must be understood according to the same categories;
it culminated in the work of Hegel, who among many other things said
that "The real is rational; the rational is real."
Hegel's work was carried in many directions by his students; most
notably, Karl Marx appropriated both Hegel's philosophy of history and
the empirical ethics dominant in Britain, transforming Hegel's ideas
into a strictly materialist form, to be used as a tool for revolution.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, Kierkegaard turned philosophy
into an internal and religious endeavour. Schopenhauer took Idealism
to the conclusion that the world was nothing but the futile endless
interplay of images and desires, and advocated atheism and pessimism.
Kierkegaard's and Schopenhauer's ideas were taken up and transformed
by Nietzsche, who seized upon their various dismissals of the world to
proclaim "God is dead" and to reject all systematic philosophy and all
striving for a fixed truth transcending the individual. Nietzsche,
though, found in this not a grounds for pessimism, but the possibility
of a new kind of freedom.
(Rationalism is sometimes extended to include Rousseau, Kant and post-
Kantian Idealism, and Empiricism is sometimes extended back to cover
Hobbes and forward to cover John Stuart Mill and the Utilitarians, and
is sometimes even treated as continuous with twentieth-century
Analytic philosophy.)
During the nineteenth century British philosophy came increasingly to
be dominated by strands of neo-Hegelist thought; it was exasperation
with these that led Russell and Moore in the direction that became
analytic philosophy."
turtoni
> "turtoni" <turt...@fastmail.net> wrote in message
Aye.
"Citicisms of the Trademark Argument
The CAP compares the cause of ideas to the cause of objects, but,
whereas objects often have straightforward causes, ideas do not.
The CAP suggests a strong link between the cause of an object and its
effect, but
The ingredients of a strong bridge do not themselves contain
strength.
Sponge cake has many properties not present in the ingredients (e.g.
sponginess)
David Hume – The idea of God could be arrived at by considering
qualities within oneself (wisdom, strength, goodness..) and magnifying
them.
Knowledge of God is not innate – it is taught to us.
Descartes is wrong to compare it to knowledge of self.
David Hume – All ideas come from impressions.
If God is an innate idea, it is not clear why not everyone has one."
brian fletcher
"Xarx" <xa...@neoncity.com> wrote in message
news:vm6Rj.70927$kN5....@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
therefore I must speculate" illustrates this point.
The journey of the awakening consciousness has been described as having two
distinct phases. One being that of the centrifugal flow, where we each move
away from our centre, to discover "that which we are not", and then return
on the centripetal flow of self discovery.
In history, there are those that discover the "outer flow" such as
Descartes and Plato and Galileo, and masters such as Rumi, Socrates and a
few less known "current" ones, who show up when people have exhausted the
initial stage of the search, and are ready for the inner journey.
Interesting that Hawking was born 300 years to the day of the death of
Galileo. To those that are conscious of the journey of the 'individual' this
is interesting confirmation, and no surprise.
We each play multiple roles during the search and return stages. Some are
searching while others are finding.
BOfL
Xarx
"brian fletcher" <bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:481508f2$0$30466$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Descartes demonstrated the limitation of the thinking process. "I think
> therefore I must speculate" illustrates this point.
>
> The journey of the awakening consciousness has been described as having two
> distinct phases. One being that of the centrifugal flow, where we each move
> away from our centre, to discover "that which we are not", and then return
> on the centripetal flow of self discovery.
>
> In history, there are those that discover the "outer flow" such as
> Descartes and Plato and Galileo, and masters such as Rumi, Socrates and a
> few less known "current" ones, who show up when people have exhausted the
> initial stage of the search, and are ready for the inner journey.
>
> Interesting that Hawking was born 300 years to the day of the death of
> Galileo. To those that are conscious of the journey of the 'individual'
> this is interesting confirmation, and no surprise.
>
> We each play multiple roles during the search and return stages. Some are
> searching while others are finding.
>
> BOfL
It would depend how far and wide you are prepared to look - discover - travel
and journey.
You may find YOU are ready for the inner journey - but maybe you are more
mature - you think more - you question more. Many are quite satisfied with
answers gleaned from only the outer journey - from only religion - or from a
few beers at the pub and much sex.
Have you ever considered transcending the human experience?
All you speak and teach and say is to do with the human experience as you
have no Masters who can teach you otherwise.
How can humans learn more about things when all they have for their masters
are other humans?
Well you had Jesus - and several Gods who walked and talked among you. And
yet they seemed to give no great teachings of what men really wish to know.
The deep thoughts and philosophy and answers to all questions.
If there was or ever had been one great teacher - one great God - one great
Master - then all the world would willingly follow in harmony and peace and
bliss.
And yet all humans have is a motley collection of Gods and stories and
teachers and bickering and arguments about religions and science and various
beliefs and so called truths. Ultimately there is nothing and no one amongst
humans or their Gods or religions or stories or any of it.
You have to seek elsewhere as the human existence itself is proof of total
failure on this count.
Regards
Xarx of Borg
tooly
"turtoni" <tur...@fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:82a638c0-10e0-4cb3...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I was under the understanding that God's impetus is from a percieved
'duality' to our existence. In recent threads, we've tackled the tracing
back to the source logic...and we all seem to come to a wall for causality,
even at our most base nervous synaptic root. Some argue for some sort of
central processing control or some other, while others...well, truth is,
this is where we fail to have much of a handle on things...the origin of
consciousness. If it is all material [no duality exists], then we are
illusions of mechanical deterministic biochemistry. But I think most of us
balk at this from a purely sensory point of view. It sure does not 'feel'
mechanical at all. I know I'm going to proceed on the idea that we DO have
free will, and if so, that there is a duality of some sort. Life is a
matter of choices, and we choose by things we identify with. But...we
perhaps are drawn to those objects by this identity we 'create' through free
will, in the very choices we DO make.
Day Brown
> It would depend how far and wide you are prepared to look - discover - travel
> and journey.
> You may find YOU are ready for the inner journey - but maybe you are more
> mature - you think more - you question more. Many are quite satisfied with
> answers gleaned from only the outer journey - from only religion - or from a
> few beers at the pub and much sex.
>
> Have you ever considered transcending the human experience?
> All you speak and teach and say is to do with the human experience as you
> have no Masters who can teach you otherwise.
> How can humans learn more about things when all they have for their masters
> are other humans?
> Well you had Jesus - and several Gods who walked and talked among you. And
> yet they seemed to give no great teachings of what men really wish to know.
> The deep thoughts and philosophy and answers to all questions.
> If there was or ever had been one great teacher - one great God - one great
> Master - then all the world would willingly follow in harmony and peace and
> bliss.
> And yet all humans have is a motley collection of Gods and stories and
> teachers and bickering and arguments about religions and science and various
> beliefs and so called truths. Ultimately there is nothing and no one amongst
> humans or their Gods or religions or stories or any of it.
> You have to seek elsewhere as the human existence itself is proof of total
> failure on this count.
texts and artifacts online. I look forward to reading about it. Thing
is, the Tocharians were Aryans who settled in the Taklamakhan oases of
what is now NW China. Their DNA is still found among the Slavs. They
spoke, and *wrote* a centum Indo-European language, and for hundreds of
years had an active translation business at Kucha.
Kucha was the pre-eminent Silk Road city, with shines to 22 different
religions to meet the needs of merchants. They translated texts-
scripture, commercial, whatever, among 20 different languages.
Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, Nestorian, Manichean, Vedic,
and who knows what all.
So- they were exposed to both Oriental and Occidental philosophy,
religion, and cosmology. In Chou writings, the "wise men" came from "the
West". And we see in the Bible where the wise men came from "The East".
Well, Kucha is *that EAST".
In like manner, when the emperor, Tang Tiazong sent Xuan Zang to
retrieve original Buddhist documents he sent him to Kucha first, where
he spent 6 months studying and collecting texts before going on to
India. Xuan mentions how, in the 7th century, passing thru what is now
Afghanistan, how there were ancient Buddhist monuments all over the
place. And he also mentions how he had to detour because of the same
kind of jackass warlords that still infest the region.
With a canon of documentation this vast- German, British, & French
expeditions around the turn of the 20th century, hauled out literally
truckloads of scrolls, which were then packed away in museum cellars
with the runup to WWI, then stayed there during WWII, then ignored
during the rise of Communist China. But now, all that stuff is being
dragged out and scanned.
The hundred thousand documents that will be posted is just a small
portion of what is in collections, so nobody really knows what it all
says. But from what little I have seen, there's a whole different sense
of history, and just one contiuous period of evolving thot, with a
myriad of threads going off in different directions.
Another clue to different sensibility is the absence of identity in the
authorship. I have a copy of the "Maitreyasamiti Texts in Tocharian A"
which were copied from earlier documents in the 5th century, and like so
much of the canon, preserved by the dry desert conditions for over 1000
years.
This particular text is a conversation between the Living Buddha and the
Gautamid Queen of Kucha. Interestingly, Buddha condemns what we now call
mysogeny. And no where does he try to define the divine. Most of it has
to do with the appropriate way for her to perform traditional (Ayran)
rituals, and the upshot is that they decide to consult with the monks at
Sibushi.
There are none of the florid forms of address seen in Levantine
scriputure. Nobody says a word about what god or the after life is like.
The focus is how to get on in this world, not prepare for the next.
From what they have to say, much of what passes for Western Philosophy
would be seen as juvenile egotistical drivel.
ZerkonX
> Modern Philosophy
There is no such thing in that all Philosophy was once modern and all
philosophy will become ancient.
"I think, therefore I am." You think, therefore you are. We think,
therefore we are.
I do not always think, therefore I am sometimes. What does not think can
not be unless I think it as such.
"I" is a false center.
tooly
I would add Sarte in the modern era as implimenting a kind of 'practical'
philosophy, perhaps an extension of the empiricists, in that Being itself
defines whatever truth we may find. As existence can be dynamic as the
environment and circumstance changes, so also does the truth for the
'moment'. This is exasperating to human intellect of course, always
searching for certainty. As the cliche states, perhaps the only thing
permanent is change itself. The practicality is that such thinking leads
one more to fortify the vessel itself better that must navigate change.
This has helped me to devise a personal plan based upon 'state'. So far, it
hasn't worked, LOL, as I remain very susceptible to my environment [self
integrity always seemingly to be under assault].....ah well.
brian fletcher
telling everyone, your consciousness is part of a 'collective'. Centrifugal
by definition.
BOfL
>
brian fletcher
"tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:%ykRj.57749$rC6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
BOfL
>
brian fletcher
individuals creating, including such images.
One of the great breakthroughs is developing the ability to be detatched
from ones own creations.
BOfL
brian fletcher
"ZerkonX" <Z...@X.net> wrote in message news:pan.2008.04...@X.net...
Only an awakening "I" could come up with such a pov ...:-)
Loosly translated from Life Of Brian..."only the true master would deny his
divinity" ...
Of course there is no centre to I, anymore than there is a cenrtre of the
universe.
BOfL
ZerkonX
> Ancient philosophy, Medieval philosophy, and Modern philosophy."
We now are in the Age of Python Philosophy which is an extension of The
Grand (Douglas) Adams Construct.
ToWit:
since we know intelligent life is finite inside of an infinite universe
the mathematical probability that such life exists becomes, for all
practical purpose, an impossibility.
Since intelligence has drawn this conclusion, it is impossible for this
conclusion to exist, which in turn means if you are reading this you
will, with absolute certainty, implode Thursday next, around two-ish if
you haven't already.
Have a good infinity.
brian fletcher
"ZerkonX" <Z...@X.net> wrote in message news:pan.2008.04...@X.net...
You mean I can go through a black hole and "still" retain my relativity
status?
Holy cow, that's what Hawking said (and Schrodinger had a stab also..the cat
died, and also lived..although I think he should have experimented for the
ninth time, which we all know, is when the cat turns catatonic, and then
"poof".;-)
BOfL