Discussion Philosophy

[Aizwrath]

I'm curious about how many members of this forum are knowledgeable of philosophy.

I'd like to know which wonders of it inspire, interest, or intrigue you all the most. I came to this website to learn more about philosophy as a whole, especially the contents you wouldn't find elsewhere.

If you'd like, please share with me!

I myself have been studying Nihilism lately. It has served as a significant factor in preventing me from succumbing to suicidal tendencies. Despite how contradictory it may seem, the concept of Nihilism makes life appear more beautiful to me, and that is one of the main reasons I choose to persist, regardless of the horrors my life holds.

 

[aGoodDayToDie]

Stoicism is quite interesting. Dealing with things you can't control. Also theory of knowledge is quite interesting. I was reading about AI. What exactly is knowledge? How do you know if you truly know something? It gets pretty technical. But it's interesting because we make so many assumptions about things. It's amazing how our brain automatically deals with so many uncertainties and gives us stepping stones intuitively to be able to deduce really complex things. How does it do it? How can we develop artificial general intelligence that can outperform human intelligence? How does one even represent knowledge in 1s and 0s? We seem to be able to do it via language, but it relies on so much that is unsaid being known and understood. I would love to understand how to do it. People have made real progress with neural networks, but because they teach themselves, how it works is in some ways still a bit of a mystery! It's bizarre. I wonder what a solution to AGI will look like. Will we understand how it works? Will it be a black box that developed itself and remains somewhat of a mystery, or will we construct it of processes and building blocks that we can theorise and understand?

 

[Aizwrath]

Stoicism is quite interesting. Dealing with things you can't control. Also theory of knowledge is quite interesting. I was reading about AI. What exactly is knowledge? How do you know if you truly know something? It gets pretty technical. But it's interesting because we make so many assumptions about things. It's amazing how our brain automatically deals with so many uncertainties and gives us stepping stones intuitively to be able to deduce really complex things. How does it do it? How can we develop artificial general intelligence that can outperform human intelligence? How does one even represent knowledge in 1s and 0s? We seem to be able to do it via language, but it relies on so much that is unsaid being known and understood. I would love to understand how to do it. People have made real progress with neural networks, but because they teach themselves, how it works is in some ways still a bit of a mystery! It's bizarre. I wonder what a solution to AGI will look like. Will we understand how it works? Will it be a black box that developed itself and remains somewhat of a mystery, or will we construct it of processes and building blocks that we can theorise and understand?

Some very lovely insights. Thank you.

 

[Pluto]

I can tell you about Eastern philosophy if you like. It makes some wild claims about the nature of reality, including the possibility of guiding people towards a radical transformation in identity. It's a big rabbit hole because it's ultimately talking about something that cannot be put into words - the invisible, underlying substratum of reality, which is said to be our own true nature.

One of the great contributors was Nagarjuna who lived around the 3rd century. Some of his teachings sound similar to nihilism, though are not. He argued that every definable position that anybody could hold is wrong, while insisting that he holds no particular position himself. That includes theism and atheism. Materialism and mysticism. All of it is wrong according to Nagarjuna. Yet he was not arguing from a position of nihilism either.

My 'take' on this is that Nagarjuna was pointing out the futility of the human intellect knowing anything at all. This is very similar to the Skeptics like Pyrrho in ancient Greece. As a living practise, this implies a descent into a state more fundamental than the human intellect. Perhaps more akin to the expansive wonderment of early childhood, when there is no question of knowing anything. And beyond even this, (I don't know how many ancient Greeks went this far) there is the state of enlightenment which is the ultimate goal of all authentic Eastern practitioners.

 

[Aizwrath]

I can tell you about Eastern philosophy if you like. It makes some wild claims about the nature of reality, including the possibility of guiding people towards a radical transformation in identity. It's a big rabbit hole because it's ultimately talking about something that cannot be put into words - the invisible, underlying substratum of reality, which is said to be our own true nature.

One of the great contributors was Nagarjuna who lived around the 3rd century. Some of his teachings sound similar to nihilism, though are not. He argued that every definable position that anybody could hold is wrong, while insisting that he holds no particular position himself. That includes theism and atheism. Materialism and mysticism. All of it is wrong according to Nagarjuna. Yet he was not arguing from a position of nihilism either.

My 'take' on this is that Nagarjuna was pointing out the futility of the human intellect knowing anything at all. This is very similar to the Skeptics like Pyrrho in ancient Greece. As a living practise, this implies a descent into a state more fundamental than the human intellect. Perhaps more akin to the expansive wonderment of early childhood, when there is no question of knowing anything. And beyond even this, (I don't know how many ancient Greeks went this far) there is the state of enlightenment which is the ultimate goal of all authentic Eastern practitioners.

Nagarjuna sounds like someone I'd be interested in studying. Do you know where I can find more about him?

 

[Pluto]

Nagarjuna sounds like someone I'd be interested in studying. Do you know where I can find more about him?

Ironically, it was someone on this forum who introduced me to a video in which a revered speaker from the New York Vedanta Society mentioned Nagarjuna in passing in a talk. He was comparing Buddhism and the Advaita Vedanta branch of the Hindu tradition. I ended up watching many of his other videos, which are a wealth of knowledge explained in an accessible manner. Though there are other videos going into far more depth about Nagarjuna specifically, like this one.

First a quick explainer. My own background and my main source of knowledge is based on the 20th century Indian teacher Ramana Maharshi. He attained the state of enlightenment at a young age and his teachings, based somewhat on the Advaita Vedanta (Hindu) tradition, are very direct to help others do the same. Not that I've succeeded, obviously.

Buddhists like Nagarjuna describe the highest reality as 'emptiness' or 'the void' - hence it is easily confused for nihilism. The Advaita Vedanta tradition is the direct opposite, describing an infinite, eternal entity called Brahman, which Ramana referred to as the Self. The Buddhists say that there is no self, and our normal identity is an illusion. The Hindus are saying that everything is the Self, and it is our true nature. Ultimately they are saying the same thing.



Please ask any questions because I've probably done a bad job of explaining this, and I really enjoy discourse on this subject!

 

[Aizwrath]

I've probably done a bad job of explaining this

Looks good to me, but that could just be my lack of knowledge on the subject. Tysm!

 

[MossyDeath]

Honestly Nihilism is overrated. The nihilism we know today is not the Nihilism Nietzsche thought of. Nietzsche's Nihilism (aka existential Nihilism) is the idea that there is no *inherent* meaning in anything. That you assign meaning to it.

Modern Nihilism assumes that there is no meaning, there is no meaning to creating meaning, and that life is utterly worthless as a result.

Personally, I've always been a bit of a Utilitarianist, and as much as that sounds like a political party from the 50's trying to get popular off of communist panic, it's not. Utilitarianism is the belief that the "right" thing to do is whatever brings the most happiness for the most people. "The greatest good for the greatest number." So if you have food you don't need, give it to the homeless as it will do them more good than it would do you. I've always thought that the more happiness the better, and it doesn't matter who gets it.

As a side effect of utilitarianism, it means that elites will never be happy if utilitarianism is followed, as their happiness requires deriving the happiness of multiple others, leaving them a net negative.

 

[CrazyDiamond04]

I like philosophy but I'm definitely not an expert in it.

 

[wildflowers1996]

my university degree is half in philosophy (I did joint honours with english literature), so I am interested in it