I guess it seems pretty greedy to me. Just to speak frankly.
of course we do not think in actuall percentages but we think of things one more liekly then another thus there is not a thing that is absolute or 100% certain, just seemingly more likely based on what is currently known or understood.
I would agree, but it is imoprtant to find a means to see past the intuitions that are informed by conditioning that are not valuable intuitions, like the intuiton that one should eat meat…personally…and of course there will always be intuition of things that we yet know and cannot understand.
So could Synthesism be an example of a “maelstrom”? An antimaelstrom, maelstrom?
I have to question whether in order to categorize something as a maelstrom it requires distinctions that are themselves subject to being of maelstroms, or false logic.
Yes that’s exactly my point? ? In one sense, Synthesism seeks to balance, harmonize the dichotomies, in another sense, it’s just another dichtomy. It’s antonym would be… Analysism. Talking for or against maelstroms, is itself, a maelstrom.
That’s just… perverse.
It’s funny, I was thinking that in addition to philosophical maelstroms, are philosophical perversities such as these. I see them all the time.
Maybe I’ll start a thread listing some philosophical perversities.
anon—i want to write something here but im not sure what is going on…
ROFL
Ok let me put it this way, talking for or against your maelstroms, only becomes a maelstrom, if you’re talking absolutely for, or against maelstroms, but not if you’re talking relatively for, or against maelstroms, capisci? ?
No, this is not the case at all. You’re basically saying that anything a person claims is a “maelstrom”. How then does “maelstrom” mean anything at all? I don’t think you understand the concept, as I’m using it. I don’t understand the concept as you’re using it.
The way I’m using your word is: maelstrom = monotruth.
Two responses
- two sided coin or not, we are dependent on it.
- ‘intuition’ is not really a something. There are many intuitions. While it might not makes sense for peson A to trust his intuition in areas B X and W, it might make perfect sense of B to do this.
How many cultures must one take into the mix to know one has the right balance? Are all philosophies equally true? and how do you know this?
Or one third of them are, so if you move on like he suggests believing all of them are (equally!) true you are out of balance and confused.
How does one mix radical skepticism with the others? If solipsism is true how does one mix this with local realism?
It seems to me that a philosophical maelstrom would be like latching onto certain beliefs and never letting go–never believing anything other than what you believe–which could suck you down into an abyss of close-mindedness and intellectual suffocation. A philosophic maelstrom could be a political ideology, for example–or the offshoot of that, an adherence to what may not be ‘true’ (conspiracy theories; belief in what ‘your party’ says, despite the proofs otherwise.) It could be a religious ideology, as in Evangelical Christianity or Islamism. It could be an economic ideology, as in capitalism vs. liberalism.
It means, to me, to be logic-tied to one idea only. It means that only your ideas are correct and everyone else should embrace your ideas.
It kind of fucking reminds of Lyotard’s metanarratives, like.
Liz is soooooo status quo, it hurts. I say anticonspiracism is a negative maelstrom.
I’m sooooooo sorry if I offend you; but I don’t know what you mean. Please explain.
@Moreno Well, I’ve thought about the various philosophical dichotomies, and I think there’s truth in all of them. I mean, come on, egoism vs altruism, you’d have to be a fucking moron to think man is completely egoistic or altruistic. These dichotomies are obsolete… passe. Absolutism/Relativism, Objectivism/Subjectivism, I can probably prove the truth is more/less in the middle, across the board.