Thoughts on Truth - Philosophy

The following are inconsistent, disorganized, loose sundry thoughts and musings on a variety of topics over a twenty five year span of time. It consists of various thoughts that I might have believed, thoughts I might have found interesting, things to investigate further, philosophers to read, and comments on other philosophers. One should not take what is read here as necessarily my view at any time, as some I wrote because I found the thought interesting, or I merely considered it, and others I have changed my mind on. None of these in particular should be taken as my current view, nor should any of the use of other people's names be taken as accurately representing their position. I try not to judge or belittle or criticize others, but only to focus on being the type of person I want to be.

Analogies and figurative language are not used by me as having any argumentative weight, but as communication devices. When I am defining truth and knowledge by "what I mean by my conception of them" I try to communicate meaning as being like a two-dimensional map in the mind consisting of interrelated thoughts and experiences, and a word's meaning is like an area it overlaps that it has in common with other ideas that are related to one another in that interconnected tapestry. It seems to me like most of the time the boundaries are fuzzy, almost as if that is part of the nature of our thought, or at least my thought. Perhaps others' thoughts are more exact with clear definitions and boundaries for concepts. That would be superior. That doesn't mean that I am wrong when I make some of my claims, as if I were pointing in a direction and saying I know such and such town is that way, and perhaps can get there, but I certainly can't cite exact distances, angles, coordinates, city limits. But there might just be fewer things I can state with certainty and certain cases would be more confused and problematic for me, and I could be flat out wrong in border cases. They would be right about these which would allow them to make sound categorical logical arguments. Even if they understood it and explained it to me, I might never be able to understand, if my thoughts are incapable of exactitude in such cases.

Contradictions are very real in a sense. I want contradictory things. I have contradictory meanings, etc. There is something more exact that I take as the impossible part.

Knowledge is like finishing a race. We use a clearly definied concept of what it means to finish the race. It is our definition of a description of impressions. It can be made simple so that there can be no mistakes about if it has occured, so one perspective can be made the privileged one to judge by, etc. Though obviously with the race example there might be a time when it is indeterminable, but also a time when it clearly hasn't been completed and a time when the race clealy has been completed. Knowledge would be similar so that you are aware when it has occurred.

I can see something I've never seen before but I already take it as a type, like a product at the grocery store.

It is my belief that lying underneath so much of our dialogue there are differing concepts the participants are holding. I think most people are constantly talking past each other.

I think there are some basic conceptual ways of thinking about things that need to be made explicit.

Discrete Concept vs. continuum

One can think about things in terms of individual discrete concepts or one can think of things in terms of a continuum. Often times we might be in line with thinking in terms of a continuum but each person will draw a line demarcating the distinction of things on one side from the other in completely different places. This might very well be due to our past experiences, our feelings (for example: fear), our definitions of things, our understanding of how things hang together; in short, that the whole force of our world understanding causes us to draw the line where we do. This makes getting people to agree with where you draw the line practically impossible, assuming it is even possible to communicate precisely where you draw a line, or even that a person would be aware of where they draw it themselves.

Analytic vs. Synthetic

This is a continuum

Singularity vs. Relativity

Presence vs. Absence

Similarity vs. Difference

Positive vs. Negative

This page needs a lot more work, it was thrown together from various scribbles to just touch on the topic of logic so that I could hurriedly pass on to the definition of knowledge and how it uses logic. I hope to someday develop this page further and make it consistent and define some passed over concepts.

Multifarious particular phenomena are presented to me. If I see red, it is a particular trope of red that I see. Again, reflecting on this I recognize that I cannot see that particular trope of red while at the same time not seeing it. This is also a particular reflective observation, which is observed but not not observed.

If I see a square, it is a particular individual square, and I don't both see it and not see it at the same time. This is a different reflective observation, which is observed while not not observed.

All of these phenomena are all particulars. But I notice similarites and differences between them. I notice that the red is different from the square. I notice that my observation that I don't both see red and not see it at the same time is similar to my observation that I don't both see the square and not see it at the same time.

The more phenomena that are present or have been present, the more similarities and differences I notice. It is at this point that my mind begins to generalize a number of similar phenomena into a single abstract idea. My mind begins to see and abstract a common form to the variety of particulars. It takes what is the same from them and leaves out what is different. This creates my idea of a type.

Reflection shows me that I can't help but do this abstract generalization. Reflection notices that when I think about how the present relates to the past I seldom recall particulars from my past but instead I recall abstract generalizations, i.e. types.

Reflection looks at my thoughts and notices that some particular thoughts are followed in time by other particular thoughts, whereas other particular thoughts don't follow in time other particular thoughts. Reflection also recognizes that there isn't a thought being both positive and negative at the same time in the same way.

From the aforementioned phenomena noticed by reflection of a phenomena being present but not at the same time as its not being present I made an abstract generalization. I will call this the "principle of either/or" meaning any phenomena can be either present or absent but not both. What about positive and negative but not both? It seems I must reflect on a phenomena to be able to assert the law of identity, or to recognize the law of noncontradiction. I don't make any assertions of laws, I merely suggest guiding principles of reflection only to be noticed in each instance.

Traditional logic deals with: 1) Identity/nonidendity 2) Groups of individuals with a particular predicate 3) If, then 4) If and only if, then 5) necessary condition/sufficient condition

Mathematical logic is different from what we are looking for. The manipulation of signs according to already established rules already makes use of a logical understanding, for the signs are empty and so don't convey the logical relationships and forms I am looking for.

Logic is the moving from one thought to another thought in a way that holds mutliple thoughts in a coherent relation to one another without creating a contradiction, which would not allow a system of a thoughts in coherent relation to other thoughts.

In its use in the Western tradition, logic seems to me to be reducible to two types: 1)logic of entailment, and 2) logic of association.

Logic of entailment is when one thought cannot be separated from the other thought without destroying the system of thoughts.

Logic of association is when one thought can be separated from the other thought and the system of thoughts isn't destroyed (conditional statements and so forth), i.e. their connection is not necessary. In this type there would not be a problem with the thoughts themselves if they had been connected to different thoughts, it might change the whole world from our perspective, but in considering the thoughts themselves they would be indistinguishable from other associated thoughts or if switched around with other thoughts, etc.

1) It can't be a sequence of concatenate thoughts. I can think of Socrates, and then after think of Mickey Mouse, that doesn't make me think there is a logical connection between the two thoughts. 2) It is not an association brought about by constant conjunction of one thought following another thought. 3) It is not a compunction to think one thought after another thought. I can think that all men are mortal, and then after think that the man in front of me is immortal.

There is a an illuminating parallel between logic and space. An object can be in one room and not in any other room. That room can represent a type. That room can be in a building, which is a larger, more inclusive type. I can draw as many overlapping spatial areas as I want over the object. It can be in many rooms at once, or many counties at once etc. When there is a contradiction or a logical deduction depends on when a volume of space is clearly defined in relation to everything else as X and not-X.

One can believe one thing in isolation. One can have many beliefs that are isolated from each other. One can have beliefs that contradict one another. One can have a system of harmonious beliefs. And one can have a mix of all of these. What logic from phenomena will do, in one sense, is to maximize the number of data input, maximize the relevancy of that data, and maximize the consistency of that relative data into a system.

If a particular necessarily belongs to a type, and there is a second type not identical with the first type, the particular does not necessarily belong to the second type.

If something has happened in the past it will continue to happen

Something must be the case because it is more beautiful

Something must be the case because it is more just or good

Something must be the case because it is more simple or complex

Something must have a telos

If somethings are similar in certain ways they must have a deeper connection

Something must be the case because it is intelligible

Analogy

Logical entailment

Something must be the case because it makes sense or fits in context

Feeling

Explainable

Authority or tradition

mathematical

revelation

evident

intuition

reductionism

provides a method

comprehensive system

I have noticed that often maxims of wisdom contradict one another. It is my experience that this is due to the different circumstances, values, and personality that each individual has. In other words, wisdom of living is relative to the subject's context. Those with values and a personality similar to mine will find the most value in what is said here, those who have very different values and personality will dismiss the content of this page as trumpery. So keep in mind that this page is not for everybody. Some people dont value such things, some find their contentment another way, and some people are born with self-content temperaments.

Maxims of wisdom don't do any good to just be aware of them; rather, they must be lived.

"Who combats bravely is not therefore brave, He dreads a death-bed like the meanest slave; Who reasons wisely is not therefore wise, His pride in reasoning, not in acting, lies." Pope, Moral Essays

The human brain must be trained to be wise, as wisdom is a particular pattern of thinking, perceiving, and judging, with frequent successful results. I hope their presentation here may help the reader keep them in mind; however, one must continually make an effort to be on guard and to see things from a particular perspective and to perform certain actions. Eventually wisdom in one's choices, actions, and perspective will slowly come. Wisdom is acquired by forming a habit of thinking a certain way, actuating the right choice, and understanding why that particular way is better.

1. One of the most useful methods I can offer others is to engage in introspection often and to continue to ask oneself "Why?" and for every answer that one arrives at to again ask "Why?" Always inquire into "what is the justification or source for this belief?" This leads one to the core source of causes and reasons for their beliefs and choices. Most people don't realize their perspective of reality is created by their own subjective thought contexts, so they will inevitably see things inaccurately. Furthermore, asking these questions can give definition to motivations and purposes, and having a clarity of one's chosen purpose for one's life allows one to exscind the unnecessary and counterproductive.

2. There is beauty everywhere around us; in order to see it we simply must overcome our natural tendency to ignore that which is constantly before our eyes.

We are continually inundated by colors, we need merely to turn our attention to them in order to quaff from their vibrant flowing stream and with great pleasure slake the thirst of a desiccated soul. The blueness of the sky, the greenness of the grass, the whiteness of the clouds, the blackness of my Chuck Taylors, etc., all have their own vivid hue to be tasted. And the way all these colors interact with one another, complementing and contrasting one another and subtly blending with one another, so that even something like rust on iron can be found to be a magnificent spectrum of beauty.

Every object has a shape, and their often overlooked but fascinating, variegated forms can always be drawn out and appreciated, as in the lines that they form within themselves and with one another as well as their juxtapositions. For example, the soft, rounded contours of the clouds, the various poses of trees, even the topography of the ground all have practically infinite dimensions of depth and character.

The myriad sounds and noises of the world can sound like music if one inclines themselves to hear it, and can sound like a symphony if one listens to them in concert. The jovial songs of the birds and crickets, the gentle or passionate serenade of the wind, and the sound of a passing vehicle, though admittedly less euphonious, has a driving rhythm by which the symphony can follow its measures.

It is the music in the wind that incites the trees to dance and the grass to sway. Different trees have different personalities in how they dance, some are slow and graceful, others are energetic and lively.

Take notice of the feeling the touch of the wind gives when it wholly embraces us or slides its tender caress across our skin and through our hair. Learn the way our tactile sense takes in the countless physical objects it discovers as it explores and maps their unique surface features, with their mountains and valleys, plains and plateaus, ravines and caverns, some surface areas are firm and some are soft, some are found to be cold, others hot, perhaps it is arid or perhaps it is humid. Holding a baseball can itself be an entertainment. Even touching one's own hands can allow one to feel a completely different experience, incapable of being grasped in any other way.

All of these things are there waiting to be realized and appreciated. Like the vagaries of the slow, confused path a leaf takes on its journey from high above to its new home on the ground, or the swift and graceful ascent of a bird from the leaf covered ground to the verdant treetops. As the sun sets, the vast earth stretching to the horizon is blanketed by the soft, scintillating, august night sky. And one of the most beautiful things that you can quite often find the occasion to greatly enjoy in public places is the exhibited love of a doting parent for their endeared child. And is there not a modicum of beauty in cheesy puns and ridiculous metaphors?

3. Meaning comes from within us so we have some amount of control over the meaning that we find in things.

4. Practice self-discipline and master yourself. Be wary and on guard against your own animal inclinations, desires, passions, and destructive emotions. Be cautious with your emotions and needs, for they usually give a false impression of the actual situation. Do not indulge your temptations by contemplating them or giving way. The more often one allows such transgressions the more lax one's constitution becomes in regard to such things and the easier it is to continue to indulge them. Instead, as soon as one realizes such an inclination, one must control oneself to think of something else and not allow its actuation. Do not put yourself in compromising situations where you believe you might be tempted.

"No good comes from looking often on what one day may seduce you, and in exposing yourself to the temptation of what you find difficult to do without." - Jerome

Certain emotions, like hate, hurts oneself more than anyone else, and the moment one feels like they are filling up with hate or are becoming angry, one must master themselves and divert that emotional energy into happiness or cheerfulness (as Plutarch wrote that Socrates did). Pride and desire for self-validation are often causes for many a bad situation, so be sure to keep them under control.

"The passions possess a certain injustice and self interest which makes it dangerous to follow them, and in reality we should distrust them even when they appear most trustworthy." - Rochefoucauld

You can either incessantly strive after desires that require fortuitous external circumstances for the object of desire to be acquired, where if it isn't acquired it will cause frustration and discomfort, and if it is acquired will only result in fleeting satisfaction before yielding to the next desire; or you can conquer desire itself and be at peace, and futhermore, to the educated, this victory also happens to be much more impressive. The former is a state of slavery to the passions and the objects of desire, a weakness always exposed to exploitation, where one's satisfaction is ephemeral and is always subject to the capricious will of fate. The latter is a state of autonomy from everything external and mastery of everything internal, making one an impregnable, imperturbable stronghold.

5. Focus on avoiding pain and suffering, not on trying to acquire pleasure or happiness, as the latter is often a fictitious or delusional state and often will eventually result in additional pain and suffering, whereas contentment might be acquired by avoidance of pain and suffering. (In some form or another this is a very common maxim as it was stated by: Aristotle, the Epicureans, the Stoics, Hinduism, Buddhism, Schopenhauer, among others).

6. The Golden Mean - Everything in moderation, nothing in excess. (this is one of the most common maxims. It was stated by: Theognis, Cleobulus, Anacharsis, Prodicus, Socrates, Aristotle, Siddhartha Gotama, the Bhagavad Gita, the Dao De Jing, among others). Excesses often skew one's view on things, so the moderation helps toward a balance in perspective. It also allows for more variety and broadness of mind. Furthermore, positive excesses may often cause cloying.

7. If you find yourself getting angry or upset, or you are tempted by your desires, etc., try and step back from yourself and view the way that you are acting as if you were another person looking at yourself and this will help you gain control (from the Bhagavad Gita).

8. Do not be upset if other's are not recognizing your strengths or contributions, but rather be concerned on increasing the number of your strengths and contributions, and also be concerned with whether you are appreciating the strengths and contributions of others (this maxim is due in part to Confucius).

9. Always realize and remember the nature of life and the world, and in specific cases, the nature of the object or person you are dealing with (Stoicism is big on this). The point is to not be let down by having ones hopes and expectations later exposed as fatuous. This also helps one to reasonably conclude what will happen in interactions with such things; helps one to discriminate between the bad and the good, allowing one to make appropriate decisions based on this knowledge; and to realize that one is usually causing suffering to oneself rather than receiving it from something else. Instead, make your desire be to live in accordance with truth and the actual nature of things.

"She [Fortune] falls heavily on those to whom she is unexpected. The man who is always expecting her easily withstands her." - Seneca

"Know thyself" - Inscription at the Oracle of Delphi and saying of Thales; and "The unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates. This includes being aware of: the things that you do, the inclinations that you have, the core values that you have, the type of person you are, how you deal with various situations, etc. You must discover why are you really making the choice that you are making, and why are you really acting the way that you are acting. This allows you to realize what will reasonably happen in regard to yourself as well as to make efforts to rectify failings in your character.

Everything changes (thanks to Buddhism for the succinct form). Everything comes to an end.

Each person has his or her own personality and values. They change, grow old, become angry, and are fallible, diseased, mortal, and are most often lead by their self-centered passions or animal desires.

Each person has core values which are not reducible to reason or justification, and depending on what they are, may be impossible to change. No appeal to reason will influence one who does not value reason.

Physical objects break, deteriorate, and acquire signs of wear.

Inanimate objects and the world aren't alive and aren't out to get you or upset you, so don't project malicious intentions for you onto them.

Storms are destructive.

Accidents happen.

There will always be some people who like X and some people that dislike X (where X is a variable for anything).

There will always be some people who respect X and some people who disrespect X (where X is a variable for anything).

Always remember that you will never please everyone.

"I cannot understand these citizens, can't please them, whether I do good or harm." - Theognis

Always remember that there will always be people who disagree with you.

Always remember that there will always be people who just don't like you.

Always remember that there will always be people who just don't care, and there is nothing you can do to make them care.

Always remember that extremely few people are rational and self-disciplined.

Always remember that if you do good there will always be some people who will accuse you of doing evil.

"In fact it is only when good deeds are confined to obscurity and silence that they escape criticism and misconstruction." - Pliny the Younger

Always remember that some people will enjoy breaking the rules and violating the valuable.

Always remember there will always be some people who want power or special position over other people.

Always remember that most people can only deal with and are only concerned with what is right in front of them and what immediately pertains to them.

Always remember that most people aren't aware and don't realize or understand what they are doing or how they are acting.

"The multitude can be said never to understand what they practice, to notice what they repeatedly do, or to be aware of the path they follow all of their lives." - Mencius

10. As a very safe general rule you can't change people by doing good deeds for them. Kindness and generosity will rarely be appreciated and instead will usually be taken for granted or taken advantage of, and then forgotten; but you must remember that a generous action is done for its own sake, it is not done in order to receive something in return.

11. We want our lives to have value but just receiving value from others will not make us content or happy, one must also give value to others in order to be happy. Furthermore, this giving of value to others also gives substance to the value that they give us.

12. Be selective with your company because spending time with company of bad character can influence you to do things you will regret or will lead to your being betrayed.

"Evil communications corrupt good manners." - Menander

People will always give you clues in what they do and say and how they treat others as to the type of person that they are. Sometimes they will come right out and tell you how they are.

In light of the absence of any evidence or sufficient arguments which support the existence of absolute ethics, the following is an argument demonstrating supporting a rational distinction between people based on one's own subjective values. If one values himself/herself, then another person that is worth associating with will: 1) find intrinsic value in other people; and 2) assuming that all people are occasionally tempted to selfish actions or indulgence, a person worth associating with will have mastered himself/herself, have strong self-discipline, and won't give into temptation (temptations are either natural or social). People who have these two characteristics are people of strong character. People who do not have these two characteristics are of weak character. Associating with people of weak character is against your best interest, for you will be associating with a person who may try and use you, who may corrupt you by increasing your likelihood of giving into temptations, or who cannot be trusted for their weakness in self-mastery. Further complications to this include, assessing one's own level of self-mastery, so that those of you who have not achieved a sufficient level of self-mastery should obviously avoid interactions where you are weak. Avoid situations where you are tempted. For example, as Socrates suggested, you might want to avoid interactions with people with whom you are overly physically attracted to because of the possibility of compromising or doing harm to yourself due to your desire for that other person. I have also noticed the general tendency of people to conform in many ways to the group they associate with. It appears that interaction with people of a particular group, or by watching television or movies where the characters' value particular things (e.g. material possessions, physical pleasures, etc.) results in a subconscious understanding of the communal interchanges of that group, and may cause one to adapt to the culture of that group and value what that group values. Therefore, if one has a lesser degree of self-mastery, one should avoid associating with that group if that group doesn't value people of good character more than anything else. In addition to the aforementioned complications, most social animals, including humans, have a subconscious understanding of social hierarchy. So one may also include into the social dynamics, a possible inherent resistance or susceptibility to adaptation based on the unique social relationships within the social hierarchy between oneself and those with whom one is associating. In other words, if one sees himself/herself as a social subordinate to another person, one will want the person who they see as their social superior to be a person of good character, according to one's own personal degree of self-mastery. If one sees himself/herself as a social superior to the person with whom he/she is associating, one must assess his/her own degree of self-mastery to determine his/her influence on his/her social subordinate and his/her own resistance of his/her adaptation to his/her social subordinate.

13. A caring, loyal, self-disciplined friend is the most valuable thing in the world.

14. If you are experiencing moments of self-doubt, you can take comfort in the fact that if you have mastered yourself, if you respect other peoples boundaries, and if you give aid and value to others, you are exceptionally rare and the world is a better place for having you in it (though this is merely the result, not the desired end). Many people act selfishly without regard for others; many others will indiscriminately treat others with evil when they have received evil, but the world is not a better place for having these people. However, think how extraordinary the person is who can receive either evil or good (or maybe neither) but will always produce good for others. Though others might never realize the world is better with you in it, and might never value you, and may try and argue the contrary point, in doing so they will almost always inevitably contradict how they would like to be treated. Their own true feelings will betray their statement. It is an indisputable fact that those other types of people have weak characters and the world would be better without them (and almost everybody would admit this if they thought objectively about the situation as they are more honest about their feelings of that "type of person" when they are the ones who have been treated with injustice or unfairness, and they wouldn't wish for a world were everyone acted that way towards them). One will always have to live with oneself and the decisions one makes. It becomes true for all time. Though many people don't have consciences, so these facts don't bother them (a sense of shame seems to be a rarely held attribute these days, as disgraceful for the human race as that is), it will still be a fact for all of time whether they acknowledge it or not, that they were of inferior character, and the world would have been better without them.

15. Be on constant guard with yourself to always be fair, just, and honest. It frees your conscience and the world is better with these types of people. And I wish to point out one specific sense of this which is not blatantly apparent and this is fairness and honesty in one's judgments and behaviors towards others. My confession is that I have always been a hopeless romantic and all I wanted in life was mutual pure love with a woman. But I have never been shown genuine interest by a woman (and though it hurt at the time it was actually extremely fortunate for me). This caused me to be bitter and resentful towards women in general for a short period of my life. It was very wrong. But until my cousin brought it to my attention, for a long time I didn't realize that I was unfairly bitter towards women over men because it was a woman that I needed something from. Most people are selfish, dishonest, perfidious, manipulative, and are of weak characters, men and women, but that fact requires no vehement emotions as reaction. Bitterness and resentment were not fair or honest. The bitterness and resentment came from wanting love that was not given to me; however, that love was not owed to me either. It was not fair to be angry at women in general because none of them were interested in me. The point is to be honest and fair both in your dealings as well as in your judgements. You will find that this frees you from anger and heavyness of heart caused by specious instances of injustice or wronging. That problem was in me, not others.

16. Wealth, fame, approbation, secular success, and the vast majority of personal attractions are not necessarily related to any quality within a person, so they don't reflect on any value within a person. They require favorable external circumstances to acquire them and to retain them, which are outside of any person's control, so taking pride in them is ridiculous. So if you have a choice, why not choose to make yourself valuable by perfecting your character rather than try and fool the ignorant into thinking you have value by bedizening yourself with tawdry, meaningless status symbols? What most people consider "coolness" or "greatness" is an illusion, it is a superficial image and nothing more. Most people don't realize that they are valuing something just because they see someone else valuing it, even when the thing valued is actually empty or inane. Why be concerned over something that is merely an external display for others to see, when you could be appreciating something with actual substance.

17. People cause most of their own suffering rather than receiving it from something else, and if this fact is realized it can make one more aware of when this is occurring. People do have needs but they aren't as numerous as we make them out to be, and if one tells oneself that he/she is in need or is lacking in some way, it will cause that person to feel like he/she is lacking. Most of the supposed "harms" that people do to us aren't personal, but are due to someone elses inconsideration (which is often beyond the offender's ability to realize, the human brain being extraordinary yet severely limited in its understanding and focus) and/or selfishness, but if these "harms" are analyzed, many of them will be found to not actually be harmful at all. If someone steals from you, it is up to you whether or not it is considered a loss. Is pining for an object you didn't need really worth your peace of mind? And at this point it is water under the bridge anyway. If someone insults you, it is up to you whether or not you want the insult to affect you. If you do something embarrassing, it is up to you whether or not you laugh at it and blow it off, or learn from it, or let it humiliate you. Seriously ask yourself What does it matter what other people think? Do I respect people in general or those other individuals so much more than I respect myself?

(Part of the following points are due to Socrates in Plutarch and Xenophon) If someone criticizes you or finds fault with you to others, is what they say true? Then be happy you learned of the this fault and try to correct it. You choose to wound your own pride. However, if you were completely reasonable in your action at the time then no one can justifiably fault you, they are criticizing from ignorance of the circumstances or from hypocrisy. Is their criticism false? Then why should it bother you, it isn't an actual fault of yours. Your accusers are either slanderers, or reckless and irresponsible in accusation, all of which are faults in them. As for those who are believing such false information, of what true value is the opinion of unreasonable or petty people who would accept such calumny or gossip as fact without sufficient evidence? If it is malicious then their self-righteous importance is self-ascribed and founded on a lie, and most likely stemming from their own insecurity. You choose to wound your own pride. If someone becomes angry with you and attacks you, you obviously should avoid such a person, but why get angry at them and be vindictive, they are the one's who can't control themselves and are behaving just like certain animals.

18. One must attempt to conquer his/her irrational fears. Why ruin life when things are going well by worrying about things possibly becoming bad. Most of us would find it ridiculous if a man won the lottery and yet didn't appreciate his winnings, but instead became worried about losing it. So why would you not appreciate the good times you have now because of possible bad times in the future? Things are rarely as bad as we believed they would be, and we often get used to what is going on in our lives so that the impact of bad things on our conscious mind doesn't last long. As was mentioned in the last point, we cause most of our own suffering, and it is often up to us how we want to respond to things and to decide whether or not what has happened to us is bad or not. One must think about "How am I really harmed and is it really worth fearing?"

Most people are extremely afraid of death, but this is irrational. No one knows what happens after death, and those that deny this either can't think logically or are in the grips of an unfounded metaphysical theory. So if we don't know what happens after death, why fear it? Chuang Tzu illustrated this point of agnosticism in his discourse with the skull, which asserted death was better than life, or as Socrates said, the wise man does not fear death, for his situation might be improved. If death is annihilation, then as Epicurus put it, what concern is that nothingness to me? "For all good and evil lie in sensation, and sensation ends with death. While we exist death is not present, and when death is present we no longer exist." And it is inevitable (according to reason) so why waste any of the life you do have fretting about it? Thus in regard to death one should obtain Pyrrho's ataraxia, or freedom from worry. Whatever some people might claim, nobody has the slightest clue what happens to the mind at death, and good things are just as likely as bad things, and extinction is just as likely as life after death. So fearing death is like fearing the coming of the next moment.

19. We must make our choices in life with consideration and responsibility. Choices and actions always have consequences for ourselves and often for others as well. Furthermore, the choices and actions we make will be true for the rest of eternity. Even though no one might ever know what choices or actions you have made, those choices and actions will eternally be attached to who you were. And because no one knows what happens after death, no one knows whether those choices and actions will have further consequences then or not.

20. Every moment is another opportunity to start on a new life path, but also don't make the mistake of always putting off such change for another time.

Praise after death amounts to praise of sounds, scribblings, or a collection of general ideas.

That contributing to your fellow man is seen as a good thing presupposes that your fellow man is worth aiding.

Doing something in front of people will make them wonder if you will do the same to them.

Will or spirit is like the wind, while the strength in the construction of the ship is the rational. On could also compare this to horses and charioteer. The point is the will drives us and rationality controls the force.

Tacitus – 1st sentence pg 50 speaking about his generations indifference; 2nd sentence speaks of blind antipathy to virtue of all nations; close to the end of that paragraph – “for noble character…”; “the consciousness of an honorable aim…”; last two sentences on page 52 and 1st sentence on 53.

Livy – 2nd sentence on pg 596

Pliny the Younger, Book 1, Letter 9, second paragraph

The only purpose to life that makes sense according to the evidence appears to be to die. The question of the meaning of life give no certain answers but inclines one through reason to believe in an absence of meaning. But why should that matter if life is meaningless, that doesn’t mean this has to cause suffering. Reason certainly doesn’t seem to support our asking what the meaning of life is, in other words, if it doesn’t seem reasonable that if there were a meaning to life it would include us knowing or thinking about what it is.

Some types of dogs are born mean, some passive, why can’t the same be true for humans. Even though sex might feel good one only desires it at certain times.

Power and wealth and all the crimes related to these are prevalent from fear of death, ways of establishing themselves as more important or valuable than another person, as means to other ends, or maybe even valuable in themselves (as in value indoctrination) Perhaps crimes and desire for such things could be curtailed if people learned to not fear death.

Philosophy of life isn’t original but it takes personal realization.

In nature there is magic in every moment. Why can’t I focus and appreciate on that magic, like a sunset?

It seems like it is part of human nature to find threats (i.e. other people, nature, Satan, etc.)

Consider the motivational pleasures for every human action. Ex. My quest for knowledge gives a pleasure or relieves a tension in a specific mental sensation. Mesbah’s desire for practicality is a quest for pleasures or release of tension of other mental sensations.

To keep from sexual frustration: don’t look, don't think about it, focus on things you find unattractive.

Reason can make me feel better sometimes, the problem is remembering to use it and remembering rational insights that helped, and perhaps realizing them. Perhaps I need to write out each problem and its solution. Ex. I’m upset because of the apparent absence of meaning in the world – the correct position is agnosticism, meaning is possible. I’m upset because of the futility of any action in a material universe – The correct position is agnosticism, there might be more to reality and life after death where things now play a part then. The bounds of reason are this life in these circumstances so any reasonably negative conclusions about life do not apply outside of its particular circumstances. Reason is absolute method, its context is relative. “Truth” indicates absolute that is why relative truth is contradictory. If someone hates a type I'm a memeber of in general that’s their problem, because I’m either not guilty of what they say, or their reason is totally unreasonable.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, being aggressive and no-nonsense rather than passive will usually make others respect you more and others are less likely to try and take advantage of you.

What you tell yourself is important is what you’ll think is important.

Be generous and considerate but strong. Be decisive. You have many friends on your book shelf. Enjoy music, movies, books, scenery, and the little things.

Different people show that they care differently, so don’t always judge another’s regard based on your own ideas of how care is exhibited.

When other people make you happy your happiness is contingent upon theirs.

Our fascination with new things quickly dies off after just a little experience with them, e.g. balloons, magnets, etc.

The birds understand sneaking and avoiding my line of sight, they have personalities. One was passive and was consistently chased away by an aggressive bird.

Why do we let societal standards and conventions prevent us from enjoying ourselves? I suspect many of the games we played as children could still be fun and enjoyable, so go ahead and play them.

The longer I live the more and more I see man’s frame of mind becoming more and more parochial, short-sighted, picayune, and irrational.

How could people make me happy if they are crappy and selfish?

People treat others like they are objects or machines, like the waiter in a restaurant, or others in traffic.

It appears that everyone is trying to validate their value.

Having money does not increase the number of real friends, only fake ones.

Other people have problems distinguishing the truth from the meaning that they put in things.

I should sit and write out what I do and what my mind thinks and how I relate to my environment. For example, I noticed that some girls (that I wasn’t even attracted to) were sitting behind me and after a sufficient amount of time I heard the door behind me close so I turned to see if it was they that had left, as if it would put my mind at ease by knowing whether they were gone, or maybe to see if my chance to meet them was gone.

Sometimes we make decisions against our beliefs based on vague nebulous feelings or based on irrational hopes

To lay it out for those who wonder about such things: life is often unjust, the worst offenders often profit the most, just look at examples of: Dionysius who never traded his position though he supposedly lived with a sword above his head. Hitler, who after all his crimes against others simply ended his own life in defeat. Stalin who merely died of natural causes at the age of 72. Pol Pot, who likewise died at an old age and reportedly asserted that he didn’t regret anything he had done. When average people are tortured and brutally murdered by the aforementioned. Also people like Socrates, Jesus, the apostles, Seneca, Boethius, Thomas More, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, who all had some appreciable moral quality were all murdered. Forces of nature and accidents also claim so many average people’s lives indiscriminately. And what can one do about it? Look at human nature and you will discover that nothing can be done. You cannot even use correct reasoning to persuade or influence the vast majority of people. So one cannot hope to achieve comfort about this aspect of the world. Reason dictates that either there is not a God or that if there is then it doesn’t care about us at all. So one cannot take comfort in this either. People have different values and desires and these change even during their lives, more accurately, each person is many different people throughout their life. So given human nature it is not reasonable to expect any constancy or comfort from others. I mention the previous to keep you from hoping or focusing on those aspects of the world which cannot satisfy you. Focus instead on the pleasure derived from the beauty you can find in things like the environment, music, fantasies of love, friends, animals, etc.

People are barely conscious and are on robot mode most of the time.

Self discipline is the greatest of virtues must go along with understanding and a respect for the boundaries of others (this can be innate or taught or held as an ideal virtue)

The ignorant are ignorant of their ignorance.

My past pleasures and accomplishments don’t give me comfort today.

Concern for what other people think implies a weakness, an absence of self-sufficiency.

Hopes and fantasies are what cause disappointment. Think about the good times in the past. One need not care about other people to do the right thing.

I don’t understand the world. People seek those who have made something great, and people aspire to make something great in order to attract others, but I have always wanted to make something great because of another person and this doesn’t attract anyone.

Can I create a magical world around me though it is false? The world can just be a canvas for my own creation?

But irrationality is another person's foible so why should it concern me?

Fame has become a virtue in itself separated from its dependence on other virtues.

Having ideals only disappoints.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you but never expect them to do unto you as they would want you to do unto them.

I have desires and wants that I can't acquire or satisfy. So in order to be happy I must conquer myself. I must be able to overcome these things and find peace and enjoyment in the little things and nature.

Would I be happier if I lived my life with small achievable goals like “I want to make it home safely from Taco Bell”?

It is impossible to acquire all the knowledge about something, so be content that you will never know everything about anything.

I am like a fortress established on a desolate wasteland outside of which are myriad blood thirsty enemies all heavily armed and armored living in lush territory. I have no weapons nor armor.

I’m not living in the present. The sky and trees are beautiful but yet I continue to get caught up in the future. What does it matter that people think or care for me as little as they do for a rock deep in the Earth? Be confident in your conclusions. Feel your bond with your surroundings. Remember that everything is made of the same stuff.

The belief that one is missing something or missing out is one of the great sources of distress. The same things are to be found everywhere.

If the world distresses you there are only two things butting heads here, you and the world. How much easier is it to fix yourself then the world?

People generally look for the reasons why someone is doing something rather than look for the reasons why they’re not doing the opposite. Ex. I drive my car slowly because driving fast endangers the lives of others, but other people would attribute my driving slowly to a lack of awareness of what’s going on.

Watch what you say and promise. Don’t want things that don’t exist. Karma doesn’t exist.

Keeping one’s spirits up with successes

Insecurity is bad

Money- is not a reflection of the worth of a person, death and loss, causes worry about losing it, the types of people it attracts.

Fame- not a reflection of the person, death and loss, is worse after you lose it, is an illusion and doesn’t have anything to do with who one is.

Passions seem to die down with age but there is also the fact that older people have acquired both possesions and family and so fear losing them.

People tend to look at what they don't presently have and not at what they do presently have, they take the latter for granted as theirs by right. And they tend to think only one step ahead for solutions, they don't think about the long run, long term effects and consequences. They are like the children's story where the people acquire all the cats to get rid of the mice, and then must get all the dogs to get rid of the cats, etc.

Sometimes I don't realize that I could be happier at the present moment, I seem to get into a groove of thinking where I forget certain pleasures exist.

being just is not expecting just returns

I must recognize that I may use wisdom appropriately at times, to obviate the undesirable or to feel better, but that it is not within my control to always use it, as my brain chemistry, or moods, or whatever, shift I gain some abilities and lose others.

I was wondering about how 9-11 and America's reaction to it, with the war and so forth, so strongly split people in their positions on how things should be handled, looking for a general tendency of crisis strenghening the differences between people on how such crises should be handled.

Wisdom depends on the context, even of time, place, culture, circumstances.

As a country, not giving legitimacy to the contemptible by acknowledging them or interacting with them.

When things are stable people want their freedom and will experiment. When things are unstable, people will give up their freedom for stability.

if you have a low self-esteem, be especially wary of those who seem to value and appreciate you.

Some of Caesar's main strengths: preparation for contingencies, speed in action, reconnaisance, morale.

remember that those who study the great philosophers, even the great philosophers themselves, disagree on what they said, so that your having trouble understanding them is expected and that your writing something that will be misunderstood and difficult to communicate should be expected.

Always be nice, you never know who you are going to later report to.

People feel justified in what they do, so there are clear differences in feelings and how we view right and wrong

People taking their cue on how to behave towards others from the others' behavior towards them.

I have observed over time that my brain and conscious states are pretty reactionary. I forget how much people suck until I spend time with them.

do unto others as they would like to be treated...within certain limits :)

I can transcend, to some extent, my own animal mind, but there is nothing I can do to make others do so. I also wouldn't want to give up emotion and Platonic love.

One feels the absence of something needed but not the presence of something satisfied. I need to try and remember the consequences of my desires. I have some things that I want but I'm only conscious of what I don't have and so I long for it without realizing all I would trade for it and then long for what I'm missing then, what I lost in the trade.

Seeing things as they appear before the rational mind instead of how they appear to the animalistic mind help one keep better control and detachment from them. So although it can never have a justification, it can have pragmatic value.

I am too nice, responsible, and respectful of others to be interesting. I am too independent minded to be influenced away from Truth by fads or what is not supposed to be considered or questioned. My loneliness has helped me keep my intellectual integrity.

It is important to try and remember my current mood. Right now I am living in the moment and feel the heavy burden of its emptiness. I see the futility of everything on the large scale, including philosophy. I see the narrow-minded and repetitive, animalistic mechanism of humanity and its meaningless inevitabilities. How unsatsifying a relationship with a woman would be, really, any relationship. How people and the world will be exactly the same in the generations after my death, regardless of what I or anyone else does, etc. However, although I haven't yet done it, I feel a strong subconscious desire to throw myself back into romanticism. To see my life as a unique cosmic story, and at least to feel that sense of transcendent tragedy. I think it is important to note this subconscious drive to turn away from my present mood towards one where my life might remain the same but it can be "objectively" sad or tragic.

Life is a tidal wave, and, regardless of my actions, the current and waves are taking me with them, so I can either futily swim against them or I can surf.

I confuse myself often by having the wrong idea about people, the world, etc. My idealism and manifestations of my desires blind me from seeing the world as it is; gritty, dirty, jungle.

Very early on, converts to christianity were much higher percentage of those who were shut out, alienated, and weren't able to participate in a political or cultural level: freed slaves, slaves, immigrants, town dwellers, women, etc.

Napoleon said the secret to a successful operation is careful planning and rapid execution

maximize your knowledge of your surroundings, and maximize your control of yourself

He told me that people fall into categories, for example, the cheerleader narcissists who don't hear what others say, it is just all about them, no loyalty, just use and move on, usually the most popular. Another main type is the victim narcissist who feel that they are totally unique, they think they can't understand why other people don't think they're the greatest, will sell you don't the river, victimized superior, often look to other narcissists as idols. The way you deal with a narcissist is keep them at arms length and sell things to them by giving them the credit. He thinks that some competent nice people usually rise to the top along with the cut throats. Both reveal themselves if you listen. Don't show people your cards, crazy-man routine. Have a little reserve, check things out deeper than first appearances. People are often not what they appear to be. People project their own personal views. People try and figure you out and pigeon hole you. Develop a sense of humor. People who have done you wrong often don't know that they did anything or they feel justified. Love and forgiveness is a decision making process. You have to analyze whether someone is the type of person who analyzes whether they can get away with or just whether they just don't care.

People want to be even and not have to feel like they owe anyone anything; so some will readily think of themselves as even, even if they return something that is not worth a fraction of what was given to them

1. realize that you are upset 2. realize why you are upset

people are different naturally: one will be Platonic, another beastial

my brain and body are against me

Is the distinction between rational and animal thinking legitimate?

part of the pain of suffering comes from thinking one's suffering is unique to them, that they are alone in their suffering, so one is angry at this unfairness

If some people are stirring the pot to just have some kind of crusade, something to give their life purpose and leave their mark, this seems like something that wouldn't go away even if certain issues go away, so how could we ever expect to be at peace and get along?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070920/ap_on_re_us/school_fight
Tina Cheatham missed the civil rights marches at Selma, Montgomery and Little Rock, but she had no intention of missing another brush with history. The 24-year-old Georgia Southern University graduate drove all night to reach tiny Jena in central Louisiana. "It was a good chance to be part of something historic since I wasn't around for the civil rights movement. This is kind of the 21st century version of it," she said.

There is a conflict between my animal nature and my conscious self

Remember behavior of others due to evolutionary reasons. Most people are often on the lookout for something better.

Determine or discover what your values and priorities are and then investigate its likelihood and change your direction of focus according to avoid pursuing unlikely ends, and chose appropriate actions to those ends. If you want to be happy, focus on that.

People often don't choose what they want most because of the pressing impact of the moment. The excitement that I get from a woman's company does not outway the pain that I feel.

Loneliness and its lifelong continuance
Seeing things that others can't see
Not being able to see what others can see
Not being valued and its lifelong continuance
Not having anything to offer and other people not having anything to offer me
Having nothing worth while to devote myself to, who is worth it?
Watching others be evil and crappy and not be able to do anything about it
Having no where to go intellectually
My memory and brain agitation
I have no hope. I have nothing to look foward to but loneliness, rejection, worthlessness, emptiness, stress, pain, and suffering.

If you ever watch babies you will notice how short their attention spans are. Adults are not much longer, you can see it in them too.

Just because someone did not initiate an action doesn't mean that they won't run with it to take advantage of the situation, like Antonius with his Senate given guard.

As Epictetus says, we must come to desire and love reality as it is. One must find what is good in constant change, insecurity, the lonesome meaningless life.

I have at my command many pleasurable experiences. In remembering the taste of an actual meal, I re-experience its goodness in a certain way. In remembering times when I was truly happy, it illicits happiness to a certain degree. Instead of being sad I should try and remember what these things felt like.

Things that helped Caesar do well: preparation for contingencies, speed in action (often rash), reconnaisance, morale, luck.

Be sure that the things you want exist

Most people can't control their pride or greed. Many people will go to war in their own way, even as a nation over pride and rank. The philosopher should not be influenced by such things but should be aware that other people are.

many people simply cannot see what is just; many others don't care, including some from the first group.

Those who do not learn from history are bound to be surprised when it does repeat.

Praise after death amounts to praise of sounds, scribblings, or a collection of general ideas.

Why does it matter what you can offer to others?

If you are getting down, don't allow yourself to dwell or reflect on that which is getting you down. Redirect your focus to "good" things.

I seem to be at my most content and feel most in control in these rare moments of reflective insight, it is a frame of mind that comes and goes, it is not always accessible.

One feels no passion or feels it to a particular degree, one suppresses one's actions or doesn't to a particular degree, the most extraordinary combination, and most productive, is one who feels to a high degree but can control and harnass that passion to proper ends. The horse is powerful and so is the rider.

Human beings have values and make decisions

Many actions and fears are reducible to an innate (instinct) fear of death, but also a fear of loss of personal value; or in other words a promotion of self-importance seems to be behind many actions and attitudes and beliefs.

There seems to be innate valuing of self, valuing of others, valuing of communal values (or is this last one just something taught with the ability to be valued?)

That contributing to your fellow man is seen as a good thing presupposes that your fellow man is worth aiding.

Somebody offering condolences can perform the exact same routine whether they feel sympathy or not. One offers condolences because it is socially expected, another will offer condolences because they feel sympathy for one's situation. These are indistinguishable.

Watch what you say and commit to, and pay attention to what others say and do

Most people judge the value of something by how it was acquired, not by its actual worth.

Social punishment of oath breaking, lying, and other vices are the only check to ensure the balance to keep things in ultimate order.

Corruption creeps in if one lets one's gaurd down

Dad says that sometimes the way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it. Things often have to get to critical mass before people will do something about it.

The world isn't sad. We feel sad about events.

Utopias are impossible when people seek thrill, danger, destruction, violence, all simply to feel alive. Manipulating others to entertain oneself. Devilish rebellion and destruction of the edifices of others and their beliefs in order to establish one's superiority or clear the way for one to make his own name. Boredom, desires, need to feel alive, need to be valued in others' minds, angry people, selfish people, all these things are part of the subconscious mind and will always be present in people (until we use eugenics or genetically engineer minds). Don't forget that the "rational" arguments of others, liberalism, conservatism, talks of right and wrong, are all merely another form of conflict and war for dominance.

From Angels in America: 1. A believed objection that judgement of rule following (by God) is a poor criteria to judge by, and judging by something that takes full perspective of one's life and the idiosyncratic complexities, perhaps like an aesthetic appreciation, is preferable. 2. Words like "homosexual" are a label that does not define a person but defines a person's placement in the pecking order and the value that society places on them. 3. "Do you want to be nice or do you want to be effective. Do you want to make the law or be subject to it."

My mind is a cavern. Spelunking in this cavern I am always in an isolated section of the cave and I am cut off from the other sections. So it is impossible to communicate what the others are like whenever I am in a particular section of the cave.

There is organism and environment. Either the organism is adaptable and capable of thriving in its environment or it is not. I am not.

Without the knowledge of objective values, it makes all values a matter of subjective values for us. One can choose to value moral goals, integrity, decadance or whatever one chooses to value for ones ends, but why not try and enjoy the journey to them as much as possible. For me personally, why try and set my sites on being awesome on the guitar and instead just enjoy my current practicing on the guitar. With ends as uncertain and even perhaps impossible as they might be, it would make my life happier if I often focused on enjoying the moment, the ride, the journey, and not some greater end, within the limits of not compromising my morality and integrity, of course.

A lot of my suffering comes from concerning myself with things, events, and people far outside of myself. Events in the news and the experiences of other people seem to occur in ways against my judgement of how they should occur, and this creates frustration and my feeling like I'm ignored, unappreciated, or not a part of the goings on. I need to contract my world. It would be wisest to be familiar with what is going on in the world around me and with other people and government, etc., but I know myself, and I have a hard time not letting such things suck me into them emotionally. Very quickly when thinking about such things does it switch my thought context to one of secular-world dealing, in which I am a nobody.

Absolute morals? To all appearances morals are feelings or conventions. What reason do I have for believing they are anything more than this?

Each person in each unique situation has a different stress, importance, degree, and value to the similarity between two things and the difference between two things, which determines the conclusions of all further thinking.

Often Incompatible Values (depending on the specifics): humility vs. honesty; mercy vs. justice; certain promises vs. truth (or perhaps openess or forthrightness); liberty vs. social justice; greatness vs. modesty; certain successes vs. selflessness; courage vs. wisdom; greatness vs. wisdom

1 out of 10 the 10(123) that our universe exists –Donald Page John Hick Charles Hartshorne William Lane Craig F.R. Tennant Posidonius Apollonius of Tyana Philostratus wrote Life of Apollonius Dionysius of Helicarnasus Ephorus Theopompus Pausanias Diodorus Siculus Somnium Scipionis Stobaeus Clement of Alexandria Apuleius Condillac Aelian Scotus Erigena Giordano Bruno Suarez Jamblichus Proclus Dionysius the Areopagite Gassendi Quintillian Martial Strabo Lucan Florus Athenaeus Aulus Gellius Orosius Marlowe Middleton Webster Beckford William Blake Wordsworth Byron Meredith and Hardy V.S. Naipaul Racine Georg Lichtenberg Bernard Williams Dionysius of Helicarnasus Ephorus Theopompus Strabo Pausanias Theophrastus D’Holbach Feuerbach Monod Shelley Keats Swinburne Saint Jerome “Against Jovinian” Cicero De Fato Ch 12, 13 Dante and Beatrice Petrarch and Laura in Canzoniere Malebranche Bayle Reid Austrian School: Ludwig von Miser; Friedrich Hayek; Walter Block; Jan Niarveson; Anthony de Jasay Cicero De Fato ch 12, 13 Confucius Mencius (372-289) Hsun Tzu (350-250) Lao Tzu Chuang Tzu (350-299) Mo Tzu – equal love for all without discrimination 400s BC Yang Chu – egoist opposed to hedonism 300’s BC Sung K’eng (375-300) Shang Yang Shen Tao (325-275) Han Fei Tzu (died 233 BC) Friends from Cicero: Theseus and Pirithous; Orestes and Pylades

Anne (Finche) Conway (1631-1679) coined monads

John Philoponous of Alexandria (6th Century) argued the world was of finite age because of the confusions comparing the cardinality of infinite months with infinite days

Cauchy created the basis for Calculus

Philosophical Giants of the 19th and 20th Century:
Pierce, Frege, Mill, Bentham, Sidgwick, Hegel, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Marx
Quine, Nozick, R. M. Hare, Jerrold Katz, Gadamer, Rogers Albritton, Gordon Baker, Richard Jeffrey, Rawls, Paul Ziff, Bernard Williams, Georg Henrik von Wright, Davidson, James Rachels, Wittgenstein, Kripke

The Shepherd of Hermas
The Second Epistle of Clement
Epistle of Diognetus
The Didache
Fragments of Papias
Clement
Ignatius
Polycarp

Callisthenes of Olynthus
Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch, Arrian

Diotama
Lasthenia
Theano
Themista
Lilavarti
Tarquinia Molza

Longfellow, Tennyson, Coleridge, Wordsworth, Chesterton

Theon's commentary on Ptolemy's Book III of the Almagest
Hesychius
Apollonius of Perga
Socrates Scholasticus
Synesius of Cyrene
Nicephore

Apuleius, Aristophanes, Hippocrates, Martial, Pausanias, Petronius, Pindar, Pliny the Elder, Plotinus, Propertius, Curtius Rufus, Terence

Cleophantus

Quine, Kuhn, Frassen

Charles Taylor

I still need Lewis "On the Plurality of Worlds", Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Goodman's "Fact, Fiction, Forecast", Popper's "Logic of Scientific Discovery", Strawson, Nagel, Austin, Sellars, Putnam, Thomson, Anscombe

On the Will in Nature 1836; On Freedom of the Will 1839; On the Basis of Morality 1840; The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics 1841

Antigonus, Phillip

Schopenhauer Parerga pg 32 Eleatics first (?) perceived and conceived. Philoponus, Brucker

Michelson Morely experiment; Lorentz Equations; Pound and Rebka; Pound and Snider

Anarchists - Godwin: Political Justice (1793), was the first modern expression of anarchism; Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865): The Philosophy of Misery; Casper Schmidt (1806-1856): 'Max Stirner' - The Individual and His Property; Michael Bakunin (1814-1896)

Berkeley also wrote The Analyst (a criticism of calculus), Alciphron or the Minute Philosopher, Maclaurin - Treatise on Fluxions was a response to Berkeley, Sensus Communis

Aristippus - Cyrenaic

Lewis - On the Plurality of Worlds; Thomas Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; Goodman - Fact, Fiction, Forecast; Popper - Logic of Scientfic Discovery;

Astraea

Lessing, Condorcet, Jacobi, Rousseaus's Confessions, Diderot, Wolfe

Aspasia

Theano

Helene Cixous

Vespaio
Monboddo
Vico
internalism vs. externalism
dianoiology
Muratori
Cabanis
Philoponus
Brucker
Condillac
Pomponatius
de la Forge

Zeno; Canius; Soranus

Arnold Bus
Telegan
Bushard

Further Development

Socrates, Jesus, Erasmus, Shakespeare, Monet, Einstein, Mozart, Edison, Carnegy, Wilde, Napoleon, Leibniz, Caesar, Mesbah

First attributes, all other possible references are based on these first. Cause and Effect Specific types of change of the following phenomena lead to the creation of other abstract concepts of reference The following shows that there must be a noumena as the phenomena cannot exist non-subjectively

Sensations – sometimes brought about or destroyed by will Phenomenal object – seeking and interacting usually directed by will Ideal object – sometimes created by will Will Intentionality – sometimes created by will Emotions Desires Relation – sometimes created by will, usually not though Subjective time Thoughts – sometimes directed and created by will Feeling/intuition Understanding

Name, description, meaning, idea, reference, object, phenomenal object

Counterfactuals Coherence theory Wittgenstein’s isomorphous paradox

Darshana (Schools of Hindu thought): Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, Vedanta, Buddhism, Jainism, Carvaka

Separation between will, desire, want, need.

Mental pointing; origin of space; map of space; expectation and its idea; optical illusion; body Perspective (what is at 0,0,0) body as object, anything else? Intentionality Phenomena AND object division since the object has properties not present Will (can be detached from subject as property of body) Object illiciting certain feelings (e.g. pleasure, pain, etc.) Ideas Presence and absence Experience of number

In studying history I seek to understand how all the factors of time and place played into creating the context for how past peoples viewed the world, with the belief that this will give me unique objective insight into the factors or at least overall constructs playing into how people view the world now and the arbitrary, relative presuppositions of which they aren't even aware.

We seek the timeless, logical ideal, Platonic form of logic, pure rationality, but, as with all other Platonic forms, all we ever encounter is the particular logical argument. The universe evolves; species evolve; individuals evolve; objects constantly change; communal language evolves; my meanings evolve; radical translation with other and oneself; I evolve; I am man different people, and perspectives, and desires, and thoughts; memories evolve; what makes sense and what is understood is relative and contingent and evolves; what is reasonable is relative, contingent, and evolves. The logical conclusion is relative, contingent, and evolves. The logical is not necessarily the metaphysical. Logical bivalent truths are all that are stable, but which is affirmed and which is denied can change with new premises (i.e. experiences). All that is for me is the current particular argument. This is humbling, but itself is tentative.

Time and again I attempt to objectify but I am always only legitimate to the subjective realm. Keep it to how I must think!

Happiness - perhaps a pleasure derived from a general overall state of one's life.
1. Community 2. Purpose 3. Freedom 4. Absence of Pain: worry, insecurity, fear, disease, heartache, physical, etc.

Subjective Change

presence/absence shape size position color smell texture solidity sound taste feeling emotion knowledge

Objective Change

Being shape size position mass constituents energy speed

Observations and Questions

There is a thinking process that decides either for one to keep sleeping or to wake up based on an important or pressing situation, yet this thinking process is aware yet not conscious.

The pain experienced by man with a phantom arm and it subsided when he believed he unclenched his fist. How does the brain state continually cause subjective pain? How is that pain experienced by the brain if the brain is all there is?

When I didn’t know words or phrases I used to interpret them into what I did know, ex. I often did this with song lyrics.

How does one commit suicide? It seems contradictory to all inborn purposes. Perhaps it is a malfunction.

I can hear things in my mind from different directions. How?

Why do we get embarrassed and angry even at a young age when someone mocks us?

When I was typing out these notes from my papers I could hear Gina talking and her voice confused me and I wasn’t sure if I was typing what she was saying or if I was typing what I intended to type from my memory of what I just read.

Interesting and curious facts: what is a sense of humor and why does it vary between people? What causes a type of music to sound good to one person and bad to another? Why is it that at certain times one’s mind works better at performing a task then at another time?

This little kid at McDonald’s walked right up to the glass but didn’t notice me behind it, he couldn’t automatically make me out but did notice me eventually.

Does happiness require change or variety? Does it require the achievement of goals? And if so, can I be happy having extremely simple goals, like to successufully drive to where I'm eating lunch and to eat lunch, etc.?

History

2nd sentence on page 596

duumvirs - 2 Officials in charge of the Sbylline books

censors - 2

tribunes - 10

military tribunes - 3 or more

consuls - 2

dictator -

master of the horse -

Pontifex Maximus -

aediles -

City Prefect -

augurs -

praetor -

curule aedile -

duumvirs - 2 officials in charge of the Sbylline book
censors - 2
tribunes - 10
military tribunes - 3 or more
consuls - 2
dictator
master of the horse
pontifex maximus
aediles
city prefect
augurs
praetor
curule aedile

metic - foreign residents of Greek cities who dealt in commerce but enjoyed no civic priviledge

Nothern Kingdom conquered by the Assyrians and taken East in 722 BCE; 538 BCE Jews are freed by Cyrus

Great Pyramid built around 2500 BCE by Kufu; Red pyramid is 1st real pyramid; Anubis is the god of embalming

Marquis De Lafaiete
Gates
Sullivan - fights frontier
Howe
Cornwallis
Henry Clinton
Bergoins
New York 1776 Fall
Philadelphia 1777 Fall
Valley Forge 1777 Winter
Battle of Saratoga
October 1777 Begoins surrenders which interests France and they join the war in February 1778. This caused the British to give up Philadelphia in order to refortify NY
After Mamouth in June 1778 the British would concentrate in the southern states and on competition with France.

Phenomena

When recalling mental pictures my colors, shapes, and spatial distances seem to be vague approximations and it might be that what I am actually recalling before my mind's eye are vague approximations of relations. For example, recalling the color red might be recalling the general area of the spectrum of colors, or recalling a shape might be recalling the general area of the various shapes. ex. A square is more closely related to a circle than a five-pointed star and it is the relation in a general direction or maybe the form of the possible relations of shapes and colors etc.

I can "hear" sounds and music in my head that are very similar to the original experienced sound. However, there does seem to be a limit to the complexity of the sound or music. I don't seem to be able to play back many of the various harmonies of notes and chord progressions together. Ex. it is hard to play back the vocals along with the guitar and bass.

When I'm falling asleep I start to lose control of the direction of my thoughts, yet I am sometimes aware that my thoughts are becoming random. So the consciousness of the mental action is clearly a separate mental function. This was also seen when I was drunk. I seemed to be aware of myself as separate from my thoughts and actions.

The way my consciousness operates when waking up in the middle of the night is interesting. I can run through thought scenarios that if my thinking becomes too active I might not be able to go back to sleep and I can internally debate and then choose to keep my brain inactive enough to be able to easily fall back asleep, but if I engage in certain thought processes it seems to boot up and interconnect the different parts of my brain to the degree that it can't easily shut back down.

There is a part of my mind or brain that reasons and interprets objects and the world automatically (perhaps a subconscious) within a very complex context. What I am trying to do then is discover what my senses actually detect from what my mind is constructing, and so what in the understanding that my brain presents to my conscious mind is actually based on evidence and what is due to the artificially constructed context?

The number 0 and the number 1 are two numbers that have an a priori innate form in the mind. In my most simple experience, absence and the identification of 1 object are simply seen and understood by the mind.

The direction of the spinning of a wheel at slow speeds can be seen, how would this be possible if all that we knew was the present? Tehre must be some risidual impressions, not just images. There is also the ability to judge the passage of time without external stimuli, and if there was only the sound of a clock ticking we would be able to judge changes in its frequency.

Is it not sometimes the case that I notice the color green in an object, say a bush? Husserl and Heidegger (as I understand) want to say that I really only encounter the bush, but can I not focus on the color of the bush so that the bush becomes an empty vessel for the color? There is also the relations between green objects which jump out and separate green as distinct from the object it inheres in.

will - directs intentionality and idea formation
intention - is necessary (bringing an object into focus) for thought
perception
emotions
intuition

Phenomena
The Subject - subject/object divergence, ideas referring to objects intentionality, will, perception after some experience of space and time
Identity
Causation
Objects

Sight's spatial element - At some smallness of area we reach a point, which notice something is there but cannot focus on parts of it.
Sound does not have to have a spatial element but can as well as hear sounds between one's ears.
taste does not have to but can
smell does not have to but can
touch does not have to but can. An area of tactile stimulation can allow one to focus on areas within the larger area giving it spatial orientation, however, if the area gets small enough I can lose the ability to establish orientation or focus on smaller areas.

If I'm walking towards a wall or the wall is moving towards me, by the nature of sight alone I would experience a threshhold of a color filling the field of vision.

All of the senses have a smallest point of stimulation and on larger scales it becomes spatial. Within this spatial stimulation one uses the spatial representation to plot events and objects.

Regarding empiricism, if there is a real difference between the external world and the world of thoughts and ideas what remains of those external objects when thinking of a related idea? It seems that nothing remains and that the mind all along required stimulation to have those ideas and may have not ever needed to experience external objects.

I can hear things in my mind from different directions. How?

The essence of physical objects is extension, but in touch there is also solidity

remembering tastes, smells, sights, feelings, etc. include some memory of whether they were pleasurable or painful and can even illicit a reaction of avoidance or attraction; however, the remembering of the phenomena does not illicit an actual feeling of pleasure or pain.

I overlook residual images burned onto my retina all the time.

Reference

two references: subjective and objective

meaning is use and can have both subjective and objective use
language has inter-subjective meaning
Searle's Chinese Room Argument

Uncategorized

Theory of Choice I considered a possibility that our choices are generally based on a personal disposition, a disposition that usually consists of the merging of a number of different spectrums, like when combining different line graphs to find the point of intersection. It appears to me that one such dimension might be the strength or weakness of selfish desire, another dimension might be the strength or weakness of concern for others, another dimension might well be a personal perspective on the justice of a situation. When these three and, no doubt, other dimensions all combine we are left with our current personal disposition. I say “current” because I also think that our position in each dimension is in flux.

What I mean to point out by the previous is this: I have selfish desires, I have concerns for others, and I have a sense of fairness, which all interact to make me have a disposition at any given time that would choose a more selfish action at one time and a less selfish act at another time. I consider the wants and desires of others the vast majority of the time, but I reach a point when I have been sacrificing for others but I find my needs have not been met, and so considering an abstract personal ideal of justice I begin to feel I am entitled to make a selfish decision at the cost of the desires of others and feel justified in doing so, I no longer feel it is a bad decision, like I would have at some earlier or later time. Stealing might become okay at a particular time given how often I feel my needs are met compared with how often I put others before myself. It is important to note that it is my personal perspective about how much I’m sacrificing, and how much my needs are being neglected, and what is just, that determines my temporary disposition, not what someone else would think. I also find the idea of one’s personal ideas of justice as being crucial here. If I feel I am a more important person, then I would grant myself more leeway in selfish action, if I feel everyone is equally valuable then this would be abated, and if I see myself as being an inferior person I am much more willing to put up with abuses from others and self-denial. Which, if true, would imply that revolutionaries might be more successful in inciting action from others if they can spread an ideal of universal equality, or if they can spread an idea of entitlement.

Some philosophers think we should analyze common language to find the hidden logical structure and work from there. Some philosophers think we should start with common sense and our everyday world and work from there, for example, pragmatists. Foundationalists have the opposite view. We think that we should start by constructing a perfect system of thought and language and then use that to judge our everyday world and language. Here is an analogy of why I think this approach is superior. Imagine a group of engineers who have come together to build an important structure. They have come from many different backgrounds and experiences. One engineer might communicate with another engineer but they have completely different understandings about what is possible and what the best way to go about construction is. They have different languages, even though they might be speaking the same verbal language. One engineer might have gone to MIT and the other might have been an “engineer” in a remote, small, African village that doesn’t use metals. The philosophers of the former type would suggest the engineers continue as normal in their construction of the bridge, each being delegated a part to work on, and only during this process begin to analyze and clarifying what is meant within each language, but never working on the real problem of coming up with one language for all to use in the construction of the bridge. I can forsee problems arising and in my opinion those engineers that were so hasty will encounter future problems and will be surprised by the problems arising and won’t understand their cause. Or another example, computer scientists building a program together, each is delegated a part and talk with one another but they never address the fact that they all use different programming languages. Etc. The real issue of dispute, then, is that I argue people are using different languages and then attempting to get jobs done together while continuing to use their different languages; and what is more pragmatic is to develop one language that all can use and then begin the project. The other side might believe that we are, in fact, using a common language, and the differences I see between the individuals don’t amount to the comparison of an entirely different language, or the differences are so minor they wouldn’t result in problems. Or the other side might argue that such a lingua franca is impossible, and so we should proceed with what we have.

fact - context based truths existing in the spatio-temporal world There are: Lovers of Truth, of Pleasure, of Progress, of Goodness Philosophy can endeavor for truth (method), practicality, art. There is the metaphysical, epistemological, and the meaningful. Faith a kind of feeling? Faith is rational in a way taking into account reasons that we have yet to discover. Is Faith a kind of feeling? Is it rational in a way taking into account reasons that we have yet to discover?

There is nothing contradictory in the idea that I have not been influenced by others in social interaction.

Rather a meter should be defined by a precise number of units of space, this would never cause a problem of length, for even if we increased the length in an objective space of the units of space or one particular unit of space, nothing would change to us, or the standard definition.

Or a standard color changing to something everybody sees as blue.

The problem is trying to make something objective that is based on something subjective.

There is not a use to every idea because one’s intention can be to imagine something that does not exist, which would be to imagine something without a use.

Subjective experiences: phenomena, phenomenal objects, relationships, emotions, thoughts (curiosity, certainty, doubt, etc.), abstract characteristics, abstract objects

Reacting to something near one’s eye

Evidence for animals similarity to humans: horses’ pride in a race; Trouble having fun on ranch; macaques morality; chimps and birds using tools; animals that use language; David’s dog showing off its bone; seal lamenting the loss of its baby; senses of humor; elephants not leaving members of the herd behind.

Assume that if you checkmate your opponent you get to play another game. Is there a point when one would lose the purpose to play another game. All purposes or reasons that one is aware of and thinks that they have chosen originated in genetics and/or upbringing ex. No really chooses to be a lawyer, qualities in the profession appeal to the goals and purposes born in or instilled in one, and then those drives cause one to be a lawyer.

The bars of our subjective prison have always been there so they aren't noticed, but that is how I'm different, I finally came to notice them.

Now I have an understanding of what a contradiction is in reflective thought, but perhaps I may also say that contradictions arise in a lived ontology (the concrete) as dilemmas as differences in statements which should be an extension of the concrete. Bewilderment, puzzlement, and confusion are just as much basic experiences in the concrete as any other.

Philosophy has 3 major divisions of concern: the practical, the artistic, and the true; all subjective values.

"One's whole conceptual framework is determined by their individual concept of truth" is not true.
"One's whole conceptual framework is determined by the concept of truth" is true.

I have the desire to put things in simple, concise easy to learn expositions, but there is simply too much complex material for this.

A search for truth reveals the concept of truth. The concept of truth reveals a subject-object distinction and representation reality distinction.

1. That which is part of the causal chain.
2. That which is part of the causal chain AND we have evidence for.
3. That which has being.
4. THat which has being AND we have an argument for.

That which is contrasted with the object.
That which is not presented but part of an object.
That which is presented.
That which is presented and related into a phenomenal object.
The subjectively constructed object.
The objectively defined object.
The absolute object.

The skeptical position only makes sense in a particular context, so it requires presuppositions.

1. logic is a form 2. evidence

Appearance depends on experience with something so that it ellicits specific expectations.
Most of the time expected consistencies in interactions with things seem to go along with their appearance.
Some of the time things turn out to not go along with their appearance, but some of these are coupled with some kind of additional indication that they won't

Not all causes will affect us so we can never have evidence of those that don't, and not all of our causes will return a reciprocal effect on us so we won't have evidence of them either, so we would say they don't "exist".

Thoughts are whole, singular and instantaneously viewed.
Sentences are made up of parts and are apprehended through time.
Are parts of arguments thought of over time so that we can define time by thought?
Two types of time subjective experience of it and absolute.
Someone gives another a command to bring a particular red object, there is a difference between an effect actuated by c-fibre fibulation and the mental comparison of the subjective experience of red from memory with the visual experience and an action resulting from this.
"If C-fibre fibulates then the individual will bring the object."
"If object X has the color red then the individual will bring the object."
The former doesn't require understanding, consciousness, or subjective experience.

Does materialism result in a Hegelian philosophy? First, if subjective experience is reducible to chemical reaction in the brain, the essential part of this experience is the causal stimuli that is in the world, fusing man and world. Furthermore, there are complex causal interactions everywhere, and what is the obvious difference between the brain-eye-world relationship and the interactions in a storm cloud? Could the entire physical world be having subjective experiences? We don't know what is the characteristic that allows this in brains so why not?

What is the universal of a ball? It must be a sphere that is used for play. This universal involves a function and a shape. The function only makes sense in a context of things that can use the ball for play. So the universal has a special relation to things that can use it for play. But that suggests that there is a relation between the universal action of "playing" with other universals who play. So humans by their nature might be beings that can play.

There might not have to be a universal of a ball but only universals of a sphere and playing and a special relation between the two.

"Hello" is a perfect example of something that is merely an appropriate social response that one has

What about a multi-dimensional algebra that represents the multi-dimensional mental relations of ideas?

Separation between will, desire, want, need

The focus in mental mapping of the movement of a part of the body is in relation with the other parts of the body and in relation to absolute space.

adaptive unconscious

The parts of a phenomenal object make their own spatial relations

Phenonmenon of Orientation

Where I choose to hang the carrot

The effect of the proximity of other phenomena changes the appearance of a phenomenon, color, shape, etc.

trees have personalities; graceful, spontaneous, etc.

If X is not identical with Y, then non-X is not identical with non-Y

Ideas count as X and non-X but pure ideas must not be used as non-X when considering the existence of another object X.

So questions of existence must be based on evidence or logic.

loser phenomenology

Factors that preclude complete answers to scientific questions: 1)Experimental error 2) Uncertainty Principle 3) Chaotic Behavior 4) Finite Speed of Light. The model is from preconceptions you can move to any of the outer four steps: Identifying Patterns leads to Hypothesis which leads to Prediction which leads to Observations and Experimental Data which leads to Identifying Patterns, so on.

Love is a subjective experience with external displays.

A=A; and A does not equal not-A. This identification causes many problems in people's thought. If someone thinks that an object is a truck, they think it is a truck; but this should not be confused with what the object actually is; the data that is presented; what the object, as it is thought to be, means; etc. These distinctions are what is essential and is often confused. Some of the categories are then: phenomena, phenomenal objects, physical objects, things in reality, the object as what it is thought to be, the meaning that is associated with objects as they are thought to be, etc.

Consciousness exists because our pain and pleasure cause action

There really aren't absolute universals, they are mind made from real relationships and similarities. A & B are cats; C & D are dogs. A & C are brown; B & D are black. So the similarities between A & B are real and are closer than with C or D but what we think is the universal of a cat might not be identical to A & B, And there can be objects similar to A & B that move away in gradual degrees so that grouping is arbitrary, though there are innumerable real groups.

Some experiences are more powerful than others

1st proof of something other than phenomena is experience of relation and similarity, which isn't found in the particular phenomena itself but through them. An idea of relationships pops up after perceiving various relationships and it points to those actual relationships.

I see the same thing (e.g. green) in different objects (e.g. leaves).

I assume knowledge has intrinsic value

two types of goods and evils: 1) moral goods, 2) practical goods 3) aestethic goods? The first does not depend on a human subject for its worth, for one could not value it, so strictly it means to us what we ought to do for the sake of itself. The second refers to satisfying a desire that a subject gives to it and the objects and actions are means to those ends. I could expound on the types of desire that creates personal value.

When I saw someone's face at Whataburger my brain automatically judged it to be a female based on its features.

The perception is mimicked by the imagination.

experience of: representation; association; focus-intentionality

1a. Pointing to a specific phenomenal object
1. Object's image
2. idea of object
3. reference of idea to object
4. association between idea and object
5. 2nd object image 6. pointing to particular object; what I mean is that I see two different phenomenal objects and I point to the sameness of object between them though I don't have the idea of its previous image before my mind.
7. association between the second object and the idea.
Trying to think of a black square on a black background, there is no mental picture of the square, but yet one tells oneself he is thinking of a square.
The idea of skinny Santa Clause is not the same idea as Santa Clause, it is merely associated with it and the name.
It seems to be a belief that what it is presently pointing to is the same object that has been there, without any particular past images in mind, yet still pointing at experiences of it. So the it is pointing at those past experiences without dircetly bringing them to consciousness.

When I see my book I don't compare an idea of my book that I had in the past with the present image, at least not consciously. Instead I simply recognize it as the same object.

I'm trying to rewrite the language of thought. Most philosophical problems are caused by failing to distinguish a characteristic of the mind from the reality it is trying to map, and also people are lost in the complexity of rules, our goal is to get rid of useless rules and simplify the program.

The time being "experience" is an event before consciousness. The joints in nature (i.e. the differences between individuals) are experienced.

The world in itself exists as a whole. It is the subject that focuses on individuals and breaks the world into parts. We must remember that the thoughts and perceptions of the subject are the medium between consciousness and reality. That is not to say that the individuals don't exist in reality but the focusing on one particular individual is not something that is found in reality. To focus on one individual is not to focus on the others. To understand an individual for what it is one understands the present qualities and the absent qualities. Let's assume only 3 things exist: red, yellow, and blue. "Positive" and "negative" are words used in relation to when something is mental and sensory experiences. Therefore, these are the only possible experiences so in relation to red, an experience of red is designated positive while blue, yellow, and the absence of any experience are designated negative. Nothingness is defined as a mental and/or sensory experience that is not a mental or sensory experience, or that which is referred to which cannot be referred to. Nothingness is meant to be the negative of everything but is stated to still be experienced, this is a contradiction, which also can't be stated, so "contradiction" is like an error message. The exclusion of contradictions from reality is necessary, it is not a matter of understanding, reality including contradictions isn't a thought. There is a thought of a subject not understanding or being able to form a concept of an object, so this is legitimate.

All three types of philosophy are all means to an end, it is what the end is that determines what type it is: 1) Epistemic - concerned with acquiring truth (the arguments lead you). 2) Creative - innovative interpretation and speculation (arguments are second to new perspectives). 3) Practical - using philosophy as means to a pre-accepted end (you lead the arguments).
Power philosophy
Comfort philosophy

All I do is offer a theory of reality, the negation of which cannot be thought of.

Contradictions exist because they are merely a failed attempt at fusing two ideas; it is that which is attempted that does not exist.

My philosophy in a nutshell:
A = A; A does not = not-A
A is. B is. C is a relation between A & B. C is. D is A, B, & C. D is.

An object seen from two slightly different perspectives: logically they are not exactly the same, but our brain tends to think about them as the same object. Objects are those colors and shapes with their relationships that we also experience. So we would have a visual field in which some objects would change (an old object would be destroyed and a new one created) and others wouldn't, or where all objects change. This must be solved in our a posteriori knowledge of time. There is experience of color, shape, relation between them, spatial relation of objects, flow of time, similarity of objects with same spatial position. This creates a clustering effect of similar experiences. Similarity and difference are core experiences and are relative to one another.

Mathematics has context oriented truths.

In order to know that the color I see is red, must I know that it is not blue, not green, and not every other color, in other words, is it a necessary condition that I know every color? No, because the Law of Contradiction, and Law of Identity only need two categories, that which is A and that which is not-A, they are both defined by A alone, so other things need not be known, only that there is a possibility of something being not-A. A must have a list of criteria that make it A and not not-A. Oddly enough, I know that blue is not red because the experience of each are different, not that they are different. This seems to reduce red and blue to experiences. So I know that A is A if the experiences are the same. There can be something else on a metaphysical level that makes something what it is, and makes other things different but I cannot know that.
The only time there is not the possibility of another explanation or description is when things are logical
One knows that B is false if one knows that A is true and one knows that A is true by its criteria.
Can one know everything? In the act of knowing a truth, there is created something new to be known.

Contingent facts and necessary facts the former facts that change but don't change the subject, the latter can't change without destroying the subject

internal and external relations
Lewis

Two situations: 1) the present is a chunk of the time line; 2) there are smallest units of time
I experience #1 and that leads me to believe in #2 because in order for Socrates to reach the finish line in a race he must reach the finish line. I see this as a fact yet I don't capture the exact moment this occurs, but I think it must occur. Either the time does not flow and so is possibly infinite or it does flow and has ends. The rules must be carried out in stages. So the timelessness of the universe does not need to affect its internal progression. So we are part of the universe (in the broadest sense of this word), our consciousness exists in time. But the universe must necessarily come to an end by its rules or by an ending to its process from without.

I reject many philosophies ipso facto that they are purely explanatory

Addition is saying there is a one to one correspondence between the members of two or more groups and one group, ex. 5+2=7; IIIII+II=IIIIIII; My objections are limited to 3: 1) there is no idea or position; 2) there is no rational support; 3) there is something more reasonable.

Consider the speed of light and so how many moments we must be missing

I seek the truth first and then I seek to understand or explain the truth. I don't just seek groundless explanations which have an infinite regress anyway.

Objections to Introspection in the analysis of mental terms and concepts: 1) most of what is analyzed with this are about how the outer world seems not about the inner world. 2) Ideas and experiences are often vague and confused. 3) Problem of other minds 4) The problem of application pg. 138

Irreferentialism
My objections
1. We have thoughts that cannot be expressed in words
2. We use words incorrectly sometimes because of our idea of how a word is used
3. A word and an idea are not the same thing nor does a word convey an idea perfectly
4. Sometimes one can be thinking of something but use an incorrect word purely mixing it up in that simple moment, knowing it is the wrong word.
5. What justification is there for separating the external and the internal, such in their difference of significance.
6. Ideas preceed words, unless the use of the word draws attention that something specific that is being picked out which wasn't noticed before. And since ideas preceed words, words must be merely associated with ideas.
7. I can imagine never using or learning language but I cannot imagine never using thought.
8. I can picture a color without thinking of its name.
9. Signs are empty. Thoughts are suffused with significance
10. I can imagine a rock having a pain, and people around me being automatons
11. The word "refer" is correctly used when I actually do refer, just like "I see red" is correct when I see red.
12. I have an experience of refering, with or without language.
13. The motivations of this theory are to acquire objectivism and to analyze mental terms, which is an ad hominem criticism but it is also incorrect method.

Radical behavorism cannot explain values. It cannot explain various contemplations. And obviously it cannot explain what it is like to be conscious or have experiences.

A skeptical argument can be used against the external existence of almost anything. This degree of skepticism might be dismissed as silly in certain cases, however, the fact remains that the evidence cited might still fall short of legitimate evidence. Instances when the evidence is so convincing that it results in one's certainty, and that skeptical doubt is seen as ridiculous, are all well and good for the person who is certain; but it is necessary to remember, the insane are just as certain of the fictions of their insanity. What we are concerned with here is not whether one should or should not have faith in God, or whether one should or should not follow an irrational intuition that one is certain about and make choices accordingly. Rather, what we are concerned with is whether the proper rational method gives us answers, and, unfortunately, it does not. After this fact is acknowledged it is one's own personal choice whether or not to say, "So much the worse for rationality."

There is an explanatory gap between a brain state and the experience of the color green. Perhaps it is just as elucidating as saying the color green gives rise to brain states.

Minds are associated with brains and behavior, not taken as the same thing. The philosophical problem of solipsism, and the only present solution of other minds through analogy, both show that the brain and the mind are two different ideas that are asserted as identical.

Consciousness being reduced to brain states has spatial problems. Consciousness is not spatial; brains are. If one part of my brain deals with sight and another with what I hear and another with what I feel and another with the meaning of what is being said to me, etc. each of these are different spatial locations in my brain. My conscious experience of them includes all of them simultaneously. A central processing unit that takes all these in has not yet been found. The analogy for me is like different computers on the internet who are doing calculations for NASA and they each come up with their own independent results on what they were working on, but they don't send any signal out, yet something is aware of the calculations of each computer simultaneously across space. Even if there is a central processing unit in the brain, the same problem exists just reduced down to a smaller size.

Science shouldn't even consider consciousness. It isn't something that it should deal with

Interesting mixup at Whataburger: I was looking at a man and thinking about philosophy when another man talking on his cell phone walked by and sat behind me, this man looked completely different but my brain made the latter man look like the former man. I was surprised when I looked back up to see the first man still standing across the place to the degree that I wondered if there were twins there. It was only after I turned around to see that the man behind me was someone else

The state of the world owes its existence to one of three possibilities: Freedom, Efficient Determinism (contingency, i.e. causal necessity), or Sufficient Determinism (locial necessity).

remembering tastes, smells, sights, feelings, etc. include some memory of whether they were pleasurable or painful and can even illicit a reaction of avoidance or attraction; however, the remembering of the phenomena does not illicit an actual feeling of pleasure or pain.

Telephone switch board and causation

maybe matter creates space?

aspect of a present object of sight or touch; representation of a present or past phenomena; characteristics of various phenomena: this smell is rancid, this taste is salty.

sight and Touch splits into present and past. In the present there are representation with expectation, and aspect. In the past there is memory.

1. Mental Representations (idea, reference). 2. Object as seen or felt being an aspect of a physical object (sense data, reference). 3. Expectation (idea or understanding, reference). = (This) has a certain degree of similarity with (that).

Substance and Essence vs. Change
Individual Spirit vs. Individual in collective
Linear Time vs. Cyclical time
Inertia and changeless vs. Active force
Reason vs. Divination and Intuition

paradox of arrogance

the illusion of coolness and the substantiality of humor

we have description but not explanation of causation

description; name; idea; impression; object
references in identity statements
one could create an idea of something even if there is a corresponding real object without knowing that it is real

there is discrete time, space, growth, change

emotional tyrants

Misperceptions:
passion and self control; humor and shyness; strength and appearance; intelligence; Montaigne on sadness - the deepest passions are inexpressable

One maps sounds in space after sight or touch, but they still aren't essential to physical objects, so they are associated with physical objects.

I can't distinguish whether tastes and smells are directly related to touch or are located in space through association with sight or touch of physical objects.

perspective; representation; anticipation; association

physical objects; mental objects; phenomena

A=A; A does not = not-A --> phenomena --> subject/object --> belief --> truth -->knowledge

Is there a smallest unit of gravitational attraction? If gravitational pull is always reduced.

friable

ask the skeptic what he means by justification

clarification of method, foundations, first premises, definitions

evidence is without interpretation

It is possible that there are infinite causes that illicit finite impressions .....(cause red)..... (cause orange).....(cause yellow).....etc. so that every experience of red triggers the same experience though what caused it is never the same thing.

A=A, A does not = not-A; so all valid concepts much be derivable from experience

The problem of arbitrariness leads to the problem of justification which leads to the definition of belief which leads to the definition of truth which leads to the definition of knowledge

data, concepts

a unified idea might include the color blellow, which is not unified, from blue and yellow; and it also might include Alpha, which is unified from a square and the color red.

object - something that can be pointed at

physical objects - objects with hidden aspects that requires some persistence in time. Include characteristics like: extension, position in space, hidden aspects, in space and takes up space, here space is taken as distinct from the spatiality of phenomena

When the phenomenal object of a physical object leaves the flow it is found in memory and/or understanding (intentionality has not been broken)

-sounds, smells, tastes are attributed to physical objects by their spatiality's relation to physical objects in space and are attributed by association.

Space is taken as distinct from phenomena and spatiality and representation, so all of the objects in space are also taken as such
phenomena includes: emotions, intentions, ideas, will, sensations, beliefs, representations; and though it is based on its own phenomena time, space, and physical objects are taken by the subject as distinct from phenomena.

knowledge - conditions from the logical consequences of data.

Theory - evidence is data interpreted to support a theory

Even though there is a logical distinction between phenomena and physical objects the phenomena ends up being associated with the physical objects and so is seen as being in space in physical objects. That physical object is red and solid.

Beliefs are phenomena that are associated with other phenomena or objects as similar.

What is the origin of understanding possibilities? Ex. The object will be red to the visual field from a certain perspecive.

Phenomena associated with physical objects are perspectival from a position in space, established by the visual field and/or the felt body. It is perspectives that allow for physical objecthood. A physical object's position and extension in space cannot be separated, take away these and all that is left is the action of "pointing" to a variable by itself.

Our references must absolutely be pointing to something in order to be true. None of the references here are necessary, so what is it that causes reference? "Socrates" (the name) refers to things like: How "Socrates" is used in language (objective meaning); What Socrates means, what difference he makes; the sensory impression of something (this also refers to itself and to whatever is behind the sensory impression); my idea of Socrates (which also refers to itself). The idea of Socrates (might exist or subsist) and refers to what one intends by Socrates thoguh it may be successful or unsuccessful and we wouldn't know (imagine refering to something believed to exist but that doesn't exist) It is the idea that there is something like my idea or there is a causal connection of information distorted or not that leads back to something

Categories of Attributes that can act as central ideas: Socrates - Name; Teacher of Plato - relation, implies context or correlation; Physical appearance - phenomena; Death - Event, implies context; "Wise man knows that he knows nothing" - Personalized Idea; Weight - "physical" properties, implies change

The relations of various phenomenal result in a phenomenal object. The phenomenal object with abstract ideas, central ideas, and maybe its "physical" properties all relate to make the object we deal with, for example a chair.

Our idea of a physical object refers to a descriptive object with the assumption that the descriptive object has a direct relation to a physical object, or the descriptive object is an exclusive representation of a physical object.

I want to make sure that I am not just randomly grabbing an idea from a grabbag of ideas

belief is directed at reality; justification is reality directed at the belief

idea (or what is a better word for this) points to reality, and this pointing is called belief; and reality points back at idea and that is called justification

How does the reality come to the idea? (What is justification that reality indicates one idea?)

1. If the belief destroys belief then I can't think of it (it isn't a belief).
2. this creates a list of criteria for acceptance: A=A, A does not equal not-A

"true belief is like saying this belief has this specific relation to reality.

1. antithesis is a contradiction. 2. Atomic evidence

I can't think of a square-circle, so I cannot believe something is a square-circle.

A=A and A=>B; these are treated the same. Associative logical connection are treated as identity statements. People can associate two different things as identical but cannot think of them as being identical.

association and identity; how do these things get confused? Because they are thinking processes and can act while directed at something and not requiring conscious awareness of which is being used.

Study of History involves primary sources - documents or objects from the particular time period, and secondary sources which are retrospective

I assume knowledge has intrinsic value

1. and object is "attached" to phenomena 2. phenomena are located in time or space or "mind" 3. Comparison and relations, these are the same, these are different, these are similar, ex. this is being focused on.

perception and object - this perception is an aspect of that object; phenomena to object - this object is black; expectation - that object will look like this from this angle; object to object - those objects are similar in these ways; time - that phenomena was present then

two types of goods and evils: 1) moral goods 2) practical goods 3) aesthetic goods?; The first does not depend on a human subject for its worth for one could not value it, so strictly it means to us what we ought to do for the sake of itself; the second refer to satisfying a desire that a subject gives to it and the objects and actions that are means to those ends. I could expound on the types of desire that creates personal value.

knowledge = a subject that has justification that the subject experiences phenomena or an idea that refers to and truly maps an object.

subject is an object that experiences objects subjectively

subjective - the personal experience of an object

1. There is an idea that refers to a specific object AND attempts to accurately map that object.
2. the idea does truly and accurately map that object.
3. #2 is certain when its truth is based on logic, i.e. knowledge is justified when the object of reference is within the subjective experience or when a denial of something leads to absurdity.
Ex. 1. red square is an object (Alpha) and is simply experienced as a phenomenal object of a red square (Beta).
2. Subject experiences the phenomenal object and so has an idea of the red square. This relationship between phenomenal object and the subjective experience is (Theta). 3. The subject is justified and therefore has knowledge when he has the idea of Beta (Omega) or when he has the idea of Theta.
Alpha cannot be "known" because it cannot be justified but we use the idea that we do konw of, omega, and the object "Beta", in order to refer and map the object Alpha, wrongly or rightly.

The dude sees Alpha as the representation Beta and that creates the relation of Theata. and his thought of Beta is Omega and his thought of himself seeing Beta is called pi.

What ideas are necessary to make the idea of a particular object unique? Core ideas: spatial relation (ex. the object X is 20 degrees of separation to the right of object Y); phenomena or phenomenal object (ex. the object X that looks like this); mental relation to other objects (ex. the object X is the teacher of the object Y); mental relation to other ideas (ex. the object X said "All I know is that I know nothing")

What I focus on is logic, but since I was not able to find an objective justification to move from the first idea in the logical progression to a different second idea, like in A=>B, I became strict with the logical move so as only to allow A=>A. This results in my designating those logical moves other than A=>A as arbitrary. This also applies to all initial assertions, where one starts with any assertion or belief, I require that it has an objective justification for its assertion and even for its introduction, or I consider it arbitrarily asserted. I object to the attempt to replace a concept with another but while maintaining certain relations and meanings. For example, a pragmatist tries to redefine truth to only refer to what works. It is perfectly fine if pragmatists want to just talk about what works and put all their value on that, but "Truth" has a particular meaning and it is a biased trick trying to steal the word "Truth" and that concept's authority and reattach it to another concept and also maintain the original concept of Truth's relations within its conceptual web.

I was having a dream and shortly afterwards I briefly woke up from it, I made a very certain judgment that it would be interesting to tell my father and so I made a point to note to myself to remember to tell him of it. Once I had awoken in the morning, I recalled my dream and the importance I had placed on it, however, at this time it seemed silly and seemed to lack any special interest at all.

natural hierarchy
understanding of right and wrong
view of human value

perhaps logic proves timelessness and reason is merely drawing conclusions about the timeless state rather than future or past states

Awareness, values

Arguments for free will like the Dr.'s argument are using the idea that rationalism and motivation are the only causes of action, perhaps accepting determinism at least as far as the individual act in the argument is concerned in a reductio ad absurdum argument, they just don't take into account that there are many things that could cause actions.

direct vs. indirect - requires drawing a logical distinction

Beware of those who jump in and out of the game

Absolutism vs. Relativism
Truth as absolute vs. Truth as Utility (Anthropocentric)
change vs. constants
rationality vs. empiricism
common sense vs. logic
science vs. philosophy

Philosophy is (concerned with change) pointless unless it involves changing things where appropriate, whether this be the world or our beliefs, etc. Developing the criteria for change.

My philosophy should include an analysis of belief in determining how powerful (deeply felt) a belief should be, how stable vs. tentative, to what extent we should impose our beliefs on others, how consistent they should be, a belief's value.

I provide a clear explanation of my thoughts in order to have others more easily point out my errors so I can learn.

Written language consists of symbols. It becomes a language for us when we interpret the symbols in a particular way and project a meaning onto the symbols (symbols in themselves are meaningless but there can be a mutual projection of the same meaning made by both the writer and the reader). For example, in reading the Bible, one can project meaning onto the symbols by understanding them in the context of the literal English language, which is one possible interpretation. David reads them in normal English but in his interpretation we are not to use a literal interpretation but take the words in English and then subject them to a system of other contexts that he has in his head, that are tacit and make sense to him. This Davidese is less reasonable to use than a literal interpretation since we are interested in what meaning the writer projected and intended by the symbols, and the most common interpretation would be the most likely interpretation to assume one would be trying to communicate with. It is highly unlikely, and it is not rational to attribute Davidese to the writers without additional evidence supporting a specific interpretation, and such evidence could only be in the form of written language, thus making it impossible to ever gain that support for that interpretation.

It seems to me that free will would result in the most freedom from responsibilities for one's actions. First of all, there was no determining factor in the person that made them choose one choice over another, they were just as surprised by their action as any outsider. Second of all, having made choices in the past don't affect the person's choices in the future, so in a sense, each person is always a new person. If I made a choice to kill an innocent person 5 minutes ago, why should the person who I am now take any responsibility for what that other me of five minutes ago did? And punishment of anybody is also ridiculous. Punishment is meant to correct behavior, which can't be affected in the slightest degree by free will.

Value for various methods comes through practical experience so it is only after practical experience that I can ask if one would rather take something based on evidence or faith, but valuing practical experience falls into the same problem.

What evidence do I have to suggest that intuitionism and mysticism are often wrong? How are they different from reason, which is often wrong? [Found on the top of page on notes on Camus pg 31]

remember the way my brain works to go to sleep and to stay asleep if I wake up during the night.

position or negation; presence or absence; command and output; absence is a position of itself and a negation of presence; there is no way to derive 3-d from 2-d. Interpretation is required. So objects are only closely related phenomenal objects. There is a difference between what I see and what I understand myself to be looking at, sense data vs. 3-d interpretation.

vocabulary is helpful because it causes a subtle distinction and unnamed idea to be associated with something else that makes its recall or accessibility more easy. An unnamed idea exists but has no connection to the flow of language so it is less accessible.

In order for me to say the only thoughts, experiences, and meaning I have are all subjective, that I never detect anything directly in an objective way, is to find logical distinctions that demonstrate and define what the subjective concept is and what the objective concept is, and all thoughts, experiences, and meaning must be found to fall within the subjective concept. I cannot just assume the subjective/objective boundaries and distinctions. So when I say my thoughts are private, or the scientist only experiences his own subjective states, what are those subjective/objective distinctions based on?

In philosophy, science, psychology certain tools come in and out of fashion, regardless of whether they are the best tools for the job or not. Does it make sense for the sculptor to use a lesser tool not designed or fitted to his end? a lion tamer.

subjectivism vs. objectivism - I say objectivism deals with problems like a socialist might, who starts off asking why certain complex parts of socialist society are conflicted and not working properly, but refuses to analyze socialism itself or call it into question. But do I have justification for my idea that the bigger problems are resolved by fixing the smaller foundationl ones?

The word "Truth" is like a stamp with a certain communal value. When it is stamped on an assertion it secretly communicates "this should be valued more, it has a priority among your belief structure."

I need to discover when it is proper to be general with my logical categories, and when logic demands that we only consider the particulars. Deduction using universals can, from one perspective, be completely contradictory. "All men are mortal" must generalize, where perhaps speaking of Socrates, who is an individual, might make any inclusion of him into a category like "man" a contradiction. Socrates is Socrates, not a man, a man is something different that isn't real. This is a crucial problem in logic that I have to work out.

There are two ways to look at the standard meter in Paris. Either it is a meter, no matter whether it ever changes its size or not, so that from moment to moment it changes from taking more feet to taking less feet to make up a meter, but it is still always a meter as a foot is always a foot, because we say a meter IS that length of bar, regardless of its size. Or, we can try and mean the ACTUAL length in space that that meter take up at a given moment, and it never changes but is always that exact length of space. Beliefs, Socities, language, and cultures can be like this changing bar as well.

Phenomenalism is the Idealism of the 20th century. Sense data or phenomena are the Ideas. Naive Realism. Representative Realism. Representational Theory of Perception. 1. Mind-Body Problem. 2. Problem of Freedom. 3. Solipsism. 4. Problem of External World. Minor problems: 1. sleep. 2. animals.

We can't replace absolute values or the importance of God with other things just because the former don't exist. Many thinkers try to do this.

Part of my psychological reason for arguing agnosticism is that I am hurt that God has been removed from his thrown and I slap away anything that tries to replace Him. I think that I am smarter than religious people for believing in a good God. I think I'm smarter than other people or I don't, and when I don't I think I am humble. I am a hypocrite about sex.

I should try brainstorm creative writing everyday.

remembering tastes, smells, sights, feelings, etc. include some memory of whether they were pleasurable or painful and can even illicit a reaction of avoidance or attraction; however, the remembering of the phenomena does not illicit an actual feeling of pleasure or pain.

Discrete time, space, growth, change

telephone switch board and causation

maybe matter creates space?

free will is freedom from responsibility

supported/unsupported; logical/illogical

making sense is not a criteria

having a belief that another hasn't been able to prove wrong is also not a criteria

my apptitude limitations and rearing, but despite this I have tried to be objective

Not mentioning something because you assume everyone sees the same thing, so why mention it? Until someone says something that is inconsistent and contrary with that thing, you don't know that others don't see it.

Reflection is (present).
It is a natural reflection, or so it suggests itself to be.
There is no way to justify the assertion that Reflection is the beginning.
There is a sense in which the distinction between living and reflecting is naturally understood, but again, this is only realized through reflection. The distinction arises in the product of what is reflected upon; reflection on living, reflection on reflection, reflection on concepts or experiences. The vast majority of the time the reflective function is in the background unnoticed. Aching as an analogy? Poor reflection vs. good reflection

My uses of "is": present, identity, group-particular relations, subject-predicate relations, location.

Less clear but more clear.
Clear statements, unclear system (using ordinary language, not sophisticated enough language)
Clear system, unclear statements, not used to logic chopping and drawing nice distinctions.

I'm aware that the writings I have read are subject to my own interpretation, the translator's interpretation, limitations of translation, time sensitive and changing expressions of language - including how concepts were expressed at the time of the writing and how they are expressed at the time of my reading, historical-cultural differences, etc.

1. Reader's limitations (5)
2. Writer's Limitations (3)
3. Communication's Limitations (1)
4. Editor's and Translator's Limitations (4)
5. Medium's Limitations (2) intonation

In response to one who calls my foundation into question, I might say, think of the argument like we are drawing a picture according to certain commands to draw. Drawing stops when one is told to draw a square-circle, just like thought stops when told to think of a contradiction.

The principle of non-arbitrariness, ways to belief and why we pursue rationality

arguing against how people reason

making sense - could be a criteria

defining rationality because I'm interested in its use as a tool

I can't simply label something as subjective instead of objective. I must show this.

Positive vs. negative

I'm building up

Identity vs. Categories

What is essential for us to have beliefs? absolute subsistence of ideas and universals, relation of mind to world, law of contradiction, law of identity

For Aristotle, that from which anything comes into being is its principle.

Some people may be able to successfully defend their position against attack, but this position is held dogmatically and demonstrates a subordinate position of Truth in their belief structure.

Idealism of youth, and their beliefs about world mutability

People don't disagree so much over definitions as they are disagreeing over what concepts should be used, what should be valued, where our focus should be. I'm not sure about the mutability of values.

wisdom, being a good person, being passive, waiting vs. forethought

Note how in Plato, situations of X or not-X change when X has a relationship to something outside itself, be careful because the form works in some situations and not in others. It works for "man" but not for "father".

What makes one thing itself and something else its own self and different from the former? Imagine two, three, or four spherical pure substances, indivisible and immeasureable except by itself, stagnant and with only the property of itself, suspended alone in all the universe, nothing else exists and their relations to each other. No difference can be found it seems. If one of them is revolving around another, this revolution is nothing unless there is a third member to show that the first is revolving, and what is the difference if one revoles 6 times a minute or 60 times a minute?

internal and external relations
Lewis

explanatory gaps - may just be gaps in our understanding or could be nonreducible phenomena like a graph changing at a certain number
Butler's maxim
Identity
qualia

I reject many philosophies ipso facto for being purely explanatory.

I seek the truth first and then I seek to understand or explain the truth. I don't just seek groundless explanations which have an infinite regress anyway.

Addition is saying there is a one to one correspondence between the members of two or more groups and one group, ex. 5+2=7 *****+**=******* My objections are limited to 3 for rejection: 1) there is no idea or position 2)there is no rational support 3) there is something more reasonable.

gravity is inexplicable, an occult occurence

Words

caeteris paribus

lachrymator - a substance that causes the eye to tear. aporia - Greeks called the frustrating dead end with no real conclusion. altocalciphia - high heels. algolagnia - love of pain. acucullophallia - being cut. klismaphilia - douching, enema.

Sine Qua Non

quality? property? attribute? characteristic?

quality - a recurrent feature of the world which presents itself in individual objects or events taken singly

Baye's Theorem

supervenient physicalism

Tri-Synergy Test

Carrier Naturalism

lesion studies

atomos

dialetheism - true contradiction

ab initio, recherche, de re, a fortiori, tout court, prolepsis

Books

Read intro IV, self-regarding virtues?

Mind pg 145, last full sentence, then everything is a classification, and there are no objects
explanatory gaps - which may just be gaps in our understanding
Butler's Maxim
Identity
qualia

mind pg. 145 last full sentence, then everything is a classification, adn there are no objects

pleonexia pg. 95 at bottom

pg. 40 All for nothing ... upside down.

pg. 41 Put an end ... for them. Many are the ... today.

pg. 35 And in the assemblies ... new loves.

pg. 37 [Orestes's Plan]

pg. 38 This is how ... wise?

pg. 153 When you find ... luck.

pg. 154 Might I ... favor.

pg. 154 Why did my ... hatred.

pg. 210 Crown Greece... unmanliness

dreams

I had a dream where I dreamed about other people and that I did not know their thoughts. Their thoughts were private to me.

in my dream I dreamed about other people and that I did not know their thoughts. There thoughts were private.

My dream where I was imagining something to be there that I knew wasn't there." And I am often awoken by noises and sounds that I hear in my head, like the dream like a horror movie, my dad calling my name, or the knocking.

Philosophically interesting dreams I've had: My Cartesian Doubt dream; My Marty/Dad dream; Dream where I went on a first date and the girl looked like me but it didn't seem weird; Identity dream when a person was nearby then instantly far away, looked different, and I had a premonition he wouldn't leave, yet I identified them as the same. Also does this kind of bending of time space and identity that there is a different part of my brain that is activated when I'm awake which deals with such understanding.

Cartesian Doubt Dream; Marty/Dad dream; Identity dream where a person was nearby then instantaneously far away, looked different, and I had a premonition he wouldn’t leave yet I indentified them as the same. Also does this kind of bending of time space and identity that there is a different part of my brain that is activated when I’m awake which deals with such understanding? dream where I went on a first date and the girl looked like me but it didn’t seem weird. I had a dream where I became somebody else looking at me but at some point it became me again, I was a woman.

I had a dream that made me think of something when I woke up. I was dreaming randomly, without control, about my doing things and junk happening one after another like usual, I would wake up slightly to toss or turn in bed and then easily continue to sleep, without much awareness at all. My dream continued and then in my dream I stopped to think about something that had happened in the dream, so that I was dreaming about reflecting on my dream, while this part of my dream was going on I woke up and I was immediatly more aware than I had been when slightly waking up to toss or turn before. It made me think that maybe, when my brain accessed a more rational part of my brain during the dream (so that I could reflect on what was going on), that it was a part of my brain that is associated with a higher conscious state, so that when I awoke (maybe even due to this higher conscious state) that higher conscious state of my brain was already active and so I was immediately more aware of what was going on. I made note of it at the time and that it interested me and I should record it in the morning, and then I went back to sleep. It popped into my head at one point when I briefly woke up later, and then again this morning, which is interesting in its own right for how the brain was holding onto the command line I made to myself as I slept. There have been other times when I completely forgot the dream that I wanted to remember as well. For some reason, I also make the relation while sleeping or slightly awake, that in dreaming like I was intially is parallel to an awakened state where I am perfunctorily running through the motions, and then the higher reflective state occured as a higher conscious state in both.