Philosophical Speculations

You're lying to yourself, Eugene. No one has mentioned any religion or religious doctrine even once on this thread. We have literally been trying to explain to you what "Thinking" is this entire time (and also the Kantian dualism), as in the activity you are engaged in right now when read...

Not to me... the original "possibility" is metaphysical idealism. There is a lot of talk about "honesty" lately, so it would be nice if peope who feel these worldviews are opinions like one's favorite sports team, then they should admit it, and maybe use a footnote like Eugene u...

This is the real question. It's very simple. If the Cosmos is non-dual, if consciousness is a Mobius strip, if meaning is intrinsic aspect of reality, then the natural consequence of all this is that there should be such perspectives (clearly of higher order beings) from which the Cosmos looks like...

If what you say is right, then there are no quantities. Everything science measures is really a quality. There is no in inherent difference between materialistic science with its focus on measurement and quantities and idealism. This seems to contradict a core argument idealism makes against physic...

Dave casarino wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 7:38 pm Oh and Eugene what is SS?

Spiritual Science per R. Steiner Philosophy of Freedom

Reality may, and most likely will turn out to be much more rich and deep than these views tend to believe. I agree. But I'd add: we tend to adopt a worldview that naturally resonates with us. I don't think we can just reason our way to a different worldview, because reason is not our primary motiva...

Eugene, it seems you're temporarily off the hook. Do you want me to invite back that neutral monist who insists "value" is the ontological primitive? ;-) That guy religiously believes that his "neutral OP" is absolute truth, just like Ashvin religiously believes that "nothi...

PS: another assumption in any version of idealism that thinking (consciousness) can exist beyond human and animal forms. As JW and Jim Cross pointed may times, this is not even a scientifically proven fact, but only a metaphysical assumption. Every time I say that these are assumptions and other phi...

(1) Where have we stated that? (we haven't) You are stating that there are experiences existing in Thinking that are "subconscious" (i.e. not directly experienced) to us as individuals (beings) in our current 1-st person experience. That is an assumption. (2) Where have we stated that? (w...

We are not doing metaphysics. Phenomenology is not metaphysics. We are arguing because you conclude Kant's dualism could be wrong or right, no one knows or could ever know until some unspecified future time. You conclude all we know of Being is "experience/thinking", and everything else i...