The problem with Idealism

You miss the point.

Those who only do 1/10th of the work than a very buisy man does, shall still recive an unreasonable high amount of a common share, that would demotivate people from doing more.

Who says?

Really, what Lell is saying is elementary, rudimentary, a prequisite for doing philosophy. We ought to at least attempt to temporarily discard our sacred cows, if not slaughter them, prior to philosophizing. If not, then why are you hear?

Communism says?

No.

I guess I started this thread to see if there was any hope out there in cyberspace. Are there any individuals out there who can set aside their pathetic egos and their inane answers for one second. No moe BS artists. If you’re a professional philospher as some on this site seem to think they are then I pity you because it’s a waste. Life cannot simply be a test of who can shout louder. I will freely tell you that I am nothing special. I am not particularly smart or insightful but I have a great sense of smell and I know BS when I smell it. I’ll make this easy. Yes or no qeustions the ones many of you feel the world is broken down into.

Is there absolute truth? (YES OR NO)

Do you know what it is? (YES OR NO)

Do you find that your “truth” is not shared by others? (YES OR NO)

Does this “truth” do anything positive for you? (YES OR NO)

Because this truth answers some question do you feel the need to Defend this “truth” (YES OR NO)

or do questions make you reflect on it? (YES OR NO)

Most of you don’t need to answer (HTH please do not reply I know everything about you already)

Again I will admit that you are all smarter than I am but most of you still smell funny.

71 …

Why are you asking these questions? – if I may ask you that counter-question. Where do these questions come from, first of all? Where do they originate in you? I want you to see very clearly the absurdity of asking these questions. It is essential to ask questions to learn the technical know-how of certain things. Somebody can help you, if something is wrong with the computer, with the help of his technical know-how. That is understood. I am not talking about that at all. But the questions which you are asking are of a different kind.

Where do you think these questions take their birth? How do they formulate themselves in you? They are all mechanical questions. What I am trying to emphasize is that it is essential for you to understand how mechanical the whole thing is.

There is nobody who is asking the questions there. There is no questioner who is asking the questions there. There is an illusion that there is a questioner who is formulating these questions and throwing them at somebody and expecting somebody to answer them.
The answers that you get really are not the answers, because the questions persist in spite of the answers you think the other chap is giving you. The question is still there. This answer, which you think is the answer (satisfactory or otherwise), is really not the answer. If it were, the question should go once and for all. All questions are variations of the same question. You already have the answer, and all these questions are the questions that are not interested in getting any answers. The answer, if there is any to that question, should destroy the answer you already have. There is no questioner there. If the answer goes, along with the question, the questioner – the non-existent questioner – also has to go. I don’t know if I make myself clear.

[quote=“finishedman”]
71 …

What is longing? What is a star?’ thus asks the last man, and blinks. ](*,) What is with the Ivory Tower? Why won’t anyone step out? I hope your long winded reply was simply a malicious attempt to drive me towards insanity and not sincere in its BS. Forget it. Like Zarathustra my only companions are corpses. I hoped for living companions but it seems I need to grow up and recognize that such a dream is unrealistic.

When the questioner goes and there‘s no impetus to find an answer to dead questions, something new, something in the life energy begins to express itself. Thought has no life in it and when it slows way down you begin to live in a new fresh reality. There’s no room for speculation about God, truth and reality. This is not a state of omniscience wherein all of man’s eternal questions are answered, rather a state in which the questioning has stopped. It has stopped because those questions have no relation to the way the organism is living, and the way the organism is living leaves no room for those questions.

When that happens, there’s no use questioning that reality, you question rather the goals beliefs and assumption and eventually become free of them and consequently all the questions disappear.

So, what the hell if this question/answer ritual is gone. The answers you have are already dead, they have been given by dead persons. Anybody who repeats those answers is a dead person. A living person cannot give any answer to those questions, because any answer that you get from anybody is a dead answer, because the question is a dead question. That’s the reason why I am not giving any answer to you at all. You are living in a world of dead ideas.

Hell, I’ll be happy to talk to you. Answering, “Yes or No,” questions is quite a challenge for me as I tend to be very objective and see both sides of an issue, but it’s a good enough place to start.

Is there absolute truth? (YES OR NO)
Yes, Reality is the absolute Truth.

Do you know what it is? (YES OR NO)

I know that it is Reality, but I do not know what Reality is because I have only my subjective perception of it, so no.

Do you find that your “truth” is not shared by others? (YES OR NO)

I think that everyone shares in reality. I believe there are a few Philosophers that share my opinion.

Does this “truth” do anything positive for you? (YES OR NO)

Yes, in the sense that you are using positive, it keeps me fairly pragmatic, which I think is a good thing. I also remain down-to-Earth because I can distinctly and prejudicially seperate what I consider to be fact and what I consider to be a matter of belief (or assumption, or opinion etc.) based on the sufficiency of the Empirical evidence in support.

Because this truth answers some question do you feel the need to Defend this “truth” (YES OR NO) or do questions make you reflect on it? (YES OR NO)

I have questioned it, sure, but it seems to be the answer at which I always arrive. I will defend my belief that Reality itself is the Absolute Truth in a Debate, but I like Debates, I’ll defend almost anything in a Debate. Advocatus Diaboli or otherwise.

Most of you don’t need to answer (HTH please do not reply I know everything about you already)

Shit, I didn’t need to answer?

Your turn.
[/quote]

Before I proceed in answering your questions, I’d like to revisit your OP, since I don’t think it was adequately addressed.

There are a few reasons I can think of, for why we stubbornly cling on to obsolete ideas.

  1. The myth of absolute certainty. The only things I can be absolutely certain of are my own consciousness, my emotions, my appetites and my sensations. This is because they’re immediately verifiable. Before the question has even been asked - am I seeing a duck - it has already been answered, yes, I am seeing a duck, no further proof is required. However, as to what a duck is independently of my own consciousness, whether or not the duck vanishes when I look away and reappears when I look toward, whether or not the duck is capable of flight, we step out of the realm of absolute certainty, out of the realm of direct and immediately verifiable intro and extropections, and into the realm of memory, logic and attempting to determine if my internal perceptions of myself and my external perceptions of the world are valid, can be relied upon. Concerning these categories of questions, my answers are fallible, they may be wrong. Sensation, both internal and external, cannot be wrong, only our ideas about what lies beneath can be wrong. Nevertheless, there are some misinformed and foolish among us who believe our memories are 100% infallible, that are deductions and inductions are 100% infallible, that are sense data never gives us contradictory and incomplete information about the world. These people are not aware, not conscious of their own limitations. They may make rash, brazen decisions and disregard new information on a particular subject. The more hubris among them may even disregard new information altogether. These people cannot be philosophers in even the loosest sense of the word, for philosophy is synonomous with the neverending quest for knowledge and wisdom, the continuous refinement and purification of one’s paradigm. The philosopher is akin to the black smith, who tempers his swords with reason. No matter how many times the steel has folded, the sword may one day break.

Good answer, oh, shit…

  1. Idolatry. The man who believes in absolute certainty, who believes his ideas are infallible, may not actually believe so, but may be consciously or subconsciously trying to convince himself otherwise. To a degree, we have the power to believe things we suspect to be false, and to not believe things we suspect to be true. The question is one of form vs function. We hold on to old, obsolete tools, not necessarily because we believe them to be useful, but because we’ve grown accustomed to them, because they give us a sense of security, stability and familiarity, in world of flux, a world of death and decay, a world where everything (including one’s self) is continuously replaced or upgraded by the next generation of tools, ideas, people, whatever may be the case. Humans are creatures of habit. A frightening world it would be for some, to think their entire framework for organizing and categorizing reality, may need to be turned on it’s head.

  2. We love cherish our old notions. Our conceptions of the universe may give us more reason, purpose, meaning and happiness than the truth. If the truth is, life sucks then you die, what good is the truth, for some anyway? Philosophers and scientists tend to value the truth more than the general population. For most, the truth is a means to an end, not an end in of itself. They believe all sorts of nonsenses and fairtales, not necessarily because they know them to be true, but it helps them get along in this world, their friends and neighbours believe.

Well, I hope this answers some of your questions.

Irony, like the answers to those questions, is just a clever way of putting things.

Is there absolute truth? (YES OR NO)

Do you know what it is? (YES OR NO)

I already answere these two questions in my previous posts.

Do you find that your “truth” is not shared by others? (YES OR NO)

Yes, everyone who’s honest with themselves, is at least a solipsist.

Does this “truth” do anything positive for you? (YES OR NO)

Yes, I am happy to exist. Now to the task of determining if I’m alone in the universe, a single solitary monad.

Because this truth answers some question do you feel the need to Defend this “truth” (YES OR NO)

The truth is so obvious and so unavoidable I don’t need to defend it but I will if I’m in the mood.

or do questions make you reflect on it? (YES OR NO)

I might reflect on the matter further, but I am as certain as certain can be, I cannot be proven wrong. If I can be proven wrong, then I’ll eat shovels.

Are you asking whether truth is something external to us that we apprehend? No.

Truth is a status of statements, regardless of whether or not we know that status. That’s all. The rest of your questions don’t make sense, except that questions make me reflect on the truth-status of relevant statements.

It looks to me like you’re arguing in bad faith. If you want to tell everyone how stupid they are and how only you see through the BS, the Rant House is the place for that.

So, what the hell if this question/answer ritual is gone. The answers you have are already dead, they have been given by dead persons. Anybody who repeats those answers is a dead person. A living person cannot give any answer to those questions, because any answer that you get from anybody is a dead answer, because the question is a dead question. That’s the reason why I am not giving any answer to you at all. You are living in a world of dead ideas.
[/quote]
The point of my post was that there are no such things as final “answers”. Did you even read it? The list of questions was simply to illustrate that many people still cling to “absolutes”. That’s it. In addition I disagree with you that ideas live and die with the people who utter them. I agree they have a life cycle. There is a gestation period as well. Most of what we are is historically dependent. That includes you. So the choice of ideas, even novel ones, is relationally dependent on many things icluding our place in time, family, etc.

One last time I will say I am not a guardian of any answers. OK.

-Lelldoren

Thank you Pav.

I appreciate the straight forward talk. I am not sure that by saying that truth = reality you are really saying all that much but I appreciate the candid reply and not all the obfuscation.
-Lell

I see you were unable to comprehend the profundity of my response, no matter. I recommend you pick up a copy of philosophy for imbeciles, or was that morons… dummies, that’s it, dummies… pick up a copy of philosophy for retards and upon completion, hopefully you will be able to apprectiate and discuss some of the basic problems of philosophy.

P.S. Try not to be so condescending, particularly toward those who are presently beyond your comprehension.

Forum rules are clear, warning issued.