philosophers

[Guille]

Guille, I beg to differ with your position, as WithoutMe is quite correct, in the fact that many Indian logicians, metaphisicists and philosophers long ago deconstructed the then prevailing belief systems, and I might add, much more thoroughly and accurately than Derrida and the newest crop of deconstructionists. Not only Nagarjuna in India but Arcesalus in Greece did the same with Plato's and Aristotle's then prevailing belief systems. Foucault and Derrida and company have nothing new on old ideas___they have just repeated history over again, just as WithoutMe has suggested... Philosophy offers much to discover... Guille, I would suggest you at least study the early logic of Indian philosophy___it is almost identicle to Greek philosophy, in form, content and historical evolution... It's just the West knows mostly Indian, poorly exaggerated metaphysics, when in reality they also have a rich tradition of principled sentential logic, from way back B.C., as well...

Lloyd,

You give way too much importance to logic. 'If p then q' and what do I care? I do not deny that the Indians had logic and metaphysics. There is simply difference. Of course, the logic is very similar cause actually it is something almost sub-conscious, logic is like primitive, intuitional. It is not surprising that two cultures derived that 'if p then q' and 'if q then r' therefore 'if p then r' cause it's an obvious way through which to give. Does anybody have new ideas? You say Foucault and Derrida didn't. Foucault was in a great deal a historian, and Derrida was influenced by a long journey of western philosophical tradition, therefore it is easy to think they are not original. But then, who is original? I can assure you that all of Greek philosophy is intuitional. Every time I read a book from a Greek, or read about a group of Greeks (the epicures, the cinique...) I see they are all simply intuitional, there is no really great derivation happening, only axiomatization. Philosophy in the 20th century became derivation I believe due to a few factors: the impossibility to axiomatize mathematics to logic, the observational problems of science, the negation of Cartesian thinking, the study of language and the tradition that goes nihilism-hermeneutics-deconstruction-inverse nihilism (which is the name I give to postmodernism). Now, I don't neglect the possibility that before Nagarjuna and Arcesalus deconstructed, but I can assure you it wasn't deconstruction itself, you don't see that all theories have influence from the past but the point is how things are arranged and in what magnitude. You are, Lloyd, like Marx in the 19th century. He believed there was no possible escape from Hegelianism and so he surrendered to it and applied it to his praxis theory. He thought Hegelianism was all there was, that no new theories were being constructed and that all that was being written was taken from the past and couldn’t escape from Hegel. But we know there was a guy called Kierkegaard, and another one called Nietzsche, and another one called Stuart Mill, and another one called Bergson... All of them escaped from Hegel, proposed theories independent or in opposition to him. You think that Deconstruction is not new, that postmodernism goes nowhere. Well I believe there is a possible constructive thinking that can be extracted from postmodernism. Negating the reality of the present is stupid. Just as stupid as assuming it all reduces to the past. If it were like that, historians would have the TOE. But they don’t. If you read properly deconstruction you will see that the arrangement, process and significance of it is different to the deconstruction that has been done. Because the other deconstructions were not based on the ideas that deconstructionism is, like the ones I listed, or the idea important point of Derrida that ‘there is no difference between the intention of what the writer and what is written itself, for the whole process of writing is conscious. Unless we realize the principle of writing that no principle unites what is written with what was supposed to be written, no principle unites something and it’s essence, symbols and their meanings. This is the principle of no principle, and it is called differance. As it is not changed from the French from’ (from an encyclopedia).

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Guille, to me it all comes down to simple ground___there is none___nowhere! There is no more true ground in experience than in any science or discipline. We have all just been simply deluded into thinking otherwise___and very foolishly, I might add. All the way through school, in the sixties, I listened to what was taught and debated___my answer was always the same___no ground___nowhere! Now you may say I'm being a little too harsh, but if you seriously ask the really deep probing questions; What causes motion? What causes feelings? What causes thought? What creates "Being?" What founds the natural laws at first causes? What are first causes? What makes my heart beat? Why is my mind separate from others' thoughts? How does chaos and complexity create animate beings out of inanimate matter?___on and on, if you know what I mean. Not only don't regular people have no answers, but the most educated and talented of the planet have no really true answers. Oh sure, they have plenty of self-constructed organizations of thoughts, that are easily deconstructed, but where is the really true original thought of anyone? I tell you outright___it's been written, and published on the web for years___but nobody sees or hears___they're too busy listening to themselves self-construct new boogey-men ideas. Guille, the truth is there when you want to start asking___instead of telling... The real question is; does anyone have perceptive eyes, and can they truly hear...?

regards

[WithoutMe]

Lloyd,
I can of dig that, infact if one had ever known the most pointed, precise, * pertinant question of all, the answer would have been all too obvious!

& Guille, it seems to me that what I started out to say was that one needs to look at all angles with EQUAL vigour & not with a weight on any of those, thus when i saw that Eastern Philosophers were not mentioned, I simply jumped into it so as to put more weight into it, all this to balance out all perspectives! As Nietzsche used to say, "There aer no facts, only interpretation" & thus we have too see to it, so that we could see WHAT IT IS, & not what one wants it to be!

& frankly speaking, to hell with Nagarjuna or any Eastern Philosopher & same attitude goes for Western Philosophers, coz I simply am not interested in the Philosopher (atleast not in this context), instead my whole emphasis is on the Philosophy! So, Guille, just dont misinterpret my words as all i wanted is to give BALANCE to the list of Philosophers, though u may not consider the Eastern Philosophers as wanted. Indtead of getting angry on me (which really amused me, more than it amazed me), try reading up some of what I had mentioned.

Also, if u want to know abt the changes in society, language, economics & almost all aspects of life that Decontructionism had caused in India & the Eastern world, then look at History. Infact the Indian Languages, attitude towards women, trade between states & over-seas, & many othet aspects went thru a sweeping change after the Buddhists (& the Jainas to a certain extent) deconstructed the then-accepted schools of thought.

Infact even test languages were designed, the language based on 7 state logic, which was compiled by the Jain Monks, or the development of a language (as for eg., Bengali) which had distinct feminine characteristics, & many such changes! Infact the Nalanda University used to foster such revolutionary & radical ideas, of almost overturning anything on its head!

Regarding Psycho-analysis, Buddha had presented his theory of the Psche in his Abhidharma, & thru that he had overturned the basic & the fundemantal & the almost-never-to-be-questioned theory of Atman (which is kinda similar to the idea of the Soul). Buddha had introduced the idea of Anattam that there is no Ataman, as in there is no inherent form, -- "form is emptiness, & emptiness is form" [Buddha's Heart Sutra] .

Infact after the Jain Monks deconstructed the theory of Creation of this world & universe, they developed a religion where there was no Creator (be it God or whatsoever), & thus, giving birth to an Atheistic Religion. & When Buddha chose to remain silent on the 12 topics (God, Truth, etc etc) that he was questioned on, that gew into an Agnostic Religion.

Infact if u can read Sanskrit, u wud know that the word Indians used for Philosophy is DARSHAN, which is dervied from the root word of "DRSH", which literally means "to see", & thus it has been that Indian Philosophy has always been geared towards praxis, hence giving rise to such practises as Meditation, co-operative working ("Seva" in Sanskrit).... By meditation I donot merely mean "sitting down at place without any movement", but also as something which can be acted upon, like the case of the world's first martial arts, called "Kalaripayattu", which was developed in Kerala, & was later taken to China by the Buddhist Monk Bodhidharma who had given rise to the Gung-fu martial arts & also partly to T'ai-Chi... infact Bodhidharma was the head of the Shaolin Temple. Thus, the whole idea of "Darshan" was not merely sitting down together & thinking it out but to actually ACT! & it is only thru action, that an understanding develops.

However, Guille a pt. must be noted here -- that if this discussion had any Western Philosopher missing, then I wud have surely written as much on their behalf just to have a proper BALANCE! It just so happens that the Eastern Philosophers are not mentioned & I believe that one must be impartial to such things, & it is partiality of the opposite type that can counter other's partiality!!

Regards,
wM.

[Guille]

Guille, to me it all comes down to simple ground___there is none___nowhere! There is no more true ground in experience than in any science or discipline. We have all just been simply deluded into thinking otherwise___and very foolishly, I might add. All the way through school, in the sixties, I listened to what was taught and debated___my answer was always the same___no ground___nowhere! Now you may say I'm being a little too harsh, but if you seriously ask the really deep probing questions; What causes motion? What causes feelings? What causes thought? What creates "Being?" What founds the natural laws at first causes? What are first causes? What makes my heart beat? Why is my mind separate from others' thoughts? How does chaos and complexity create animate beings out of inanimate matter?___on and on, if you know what I mean. Not only don't regular people have no answers, but the most educated and talented of the planet have no really true answers. Oh sure, they have plenty of self-constructed organizations of thoughts, that are easily deconstructed, but where is the really true original thought of anyone? I tell you outright___it's been written, and published on the web for years___but nobody sees or hears___they're too busy listening to themselves self-construct new boogey-men ideas. Guille, the truth is there when you want to start asking___instead of telling... The real question is; does anyone have perceptive eyes, and can they truly hear...?

regards

I agree. But don't you think it's part of the human condition. In fact, I have a theory that the mind is the escape of the physical body to it's physical condition so it can interact and percieve itself from the outside, from outside the laws of nature, of evolution, etz. But it failed, fro the mind is only an extension of the body, and it is governed by the natural laws of evolution. Preciselly, the mind is to be extinct by it's enviroment. Those minds that don't cahnge, that don't adapt, stay behind and dissapear, and disconnect from the rest of the world. In fact, the collectivity of minds, the reunion of people, is the way through which minds dissapear, at least as independent entities; that is why in groups people don't think, just act in accordance to the whole, like sheeps. That's why we don't create original thoughts in groups. Our minds are limited. But what if we are isolated? The nearest we've been to original thinking has been always in isolation; Nietzsche, Einstein... But we might as well say not even those were original. But then, Lloyd, who cares about original thought? I definatelly don't. 'Originality is not a sing of truth, nor is the lack of originality a sing of falsity' that sentence is mine now, but it's an adaptation from Pascal's 'Contradiction is not a sing of falsity, nor is the lack of contradiction a sing of truth' but in inverted form. See, it's not an original sentence, but you would say it is great, or not? I don't try to give an status of originality to posmodernity or to deconstruction, but they definatelly have new thoughts.

[WithoutMe]

The most immediate questions that comes to my mind is -- What then is the Mind? When is this "new"? What, if any, is the relation between the two?

Can a mind grow out of its conditioning? Or rather, if not the mind, can a human being break out of all patterns that he has been so far put to? Can there be possibility of an absolutely original human entity?

& referring to what Guille was saying, Nietzsche had infact said, "Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

Regards,
wM.

[harmonygirl]

Lloyd,
I can of dig that, infact if one had ever known the most pointed, precise, * pertinant question of all, the answer would have been all too obvious!

& Guille, it seems to me that what I started out to say was that one needs to look at all angles with EQUAL vigour & not with a weight on any of those, thus when i saw that Eastern Philosophers were not mentioned, I simply jumped into it so as to put more weight into it, all this to balance out all perspectives! As Nietzsche used to say, "There aer no facts, only interpretation" & thus we have too see to it, so that we could see WHAT IT IS, & not what one wants it to be!

& frankly speaking, to hell with Nagarjuna or any Eastern Philosopher & same attitude goes for Western Philosophers, coz I simply am not interested in the Philosopher (atleast not in this context), instead my whole emphasis is on the Philosophy! So, Guille, just dont misinterpret my words as all i wanted is to give BALANCE to the list of Philosophers, though u may not consider the Eastern Philosophers as wanted. Indtead of getting angry on me (which really amused me, more than it amazed me), try reading up some of what I had mentioned.

Also, if u want to know abt the changes in society, language, economics & almost all aspects of life that Decontructionism had caused in India & the Eastern world, then look at History. Infact the Indian Languages, attitude towards women, trade between states & over-seas, & many othet aspects went thru a sweeping change after the Buddhists (& the Jainas to a certain extent) deconstructed the then-accepted schools of thought.

Infact even test languages were designed, the language based on 7 state logic, which was compiled by the Jain Monks, or the development of a language (as for eg., Bengali) which had distinct feminine characteristics, & many such changes! Infact the Nalanda University used to foster such revolutionary & radical ideas, of almost overturning anything on its head!

Regarding Psycho-analysis, Buddha had presented his theory of the Psche in his Abhidharma, & thru that he had overturned the basic & the fundemantal & the almost-never-to-be-questioned theory of Atman (which is kinda similar to the idea of the Soul). Buddha had introduced the idea of Anattam that there is no Ataman, as in there is no inherent form, -- "form is emptiness, & emptiness is form" [Buddha's Heart Sutra] .

Infact after the Jain Monks deconstructed the theory of Creation of this world & universe, they developed a religion where there was no Creator (be it God or whatsoever), & thus, giving birth to an Atheistic Religion. & When Buddha chose to remain silent on the 12 topics (God, Truth, etc etc) that he was questioned on, that gew into an Agnostic Religion.

Infact if u can read Sanskrit, u wud know that the word Indians used for Philosophy is DARSHAN, which is dervied from the root word of "DRSH", which literally means "to see", & thus it has been that Indian Philosophy has always been geared towards praxis, hence giving rise to such practises as Meditation, co-operative working ("Seva" in Sanskrit).... By meditation I donot merely mean "sitting down at place without any movement", but also as something which can be acted upon, like the case of the world's first martial arts, called "Kalaripayattu", which was developed in Kerala, & was later taken to China by the Buddhist Monk Bodhidharma who had given rise to the Gung-fu martial arts & also partly to T'ai-Chi... infact Bodhidharma was the head of the Shaolin Temple. Thus, the whole idea of "Darshan" was not merely sitting down together & thinking it out but to actually ACT! & it is only thru action, that an understanding develops.

However, Guille a pt. must be noted here -- that if this discussion had any Western Philosopher missing, then I wud have surely written as much on their behalf just to have a proper BALANCE! It just so happens that the Eastern Philosophers are not mentioned & I believe that one must be impartial to such things, & it is partiality of the opposite type that can counter other's partiality!!

Regards,
wM.

Well said WM, and thanks for the reference to the Eastern schools of thought. As these are ignored in western education, I am unfamiliar with them and will read them so that I can be a bit more balanced in my own perspective.
Cheers,