That is also known as the non-duality approach to the mind-body problem... and it can lead to the extremes of all is matter, or all is conscience... if there isn't enough clarity to integrate both apparently different sides of what constitute us...
I haven’t read enough, but it seems to me that “our” western logic is fairly coherent in signaling that there is a dilemma there. To me that means more and more that our logic is insufficient… or simply wrong. What’s your take?
Wow. The dilemma may rest in considering dilemma as a valuable tool or not. If we choose it is not valuable, then it was valuable in letting us resolve it. Then, a russellian paradox emerges. One could say that where logic exists, it can't avoid getting rid of paradoxes... or ilogical constructs. Mamma mia!
easy there, cowboy. You are giving a extra twist to the screw, and that is not needed:
The normal development of philosophy, as far as I can understand it, is that you put some postulates/axioms, you develop them, you explain reality as much as you can with them. Hopefully, at some point your axioms will end up in paradoxes and incoherences (that Kuhn says will be absorbed up to a point and silly popper claims that they are immediately recognized) and those will force you to reformulate your axioms.
NObody, at least not me, is questioning this way of approaching reality/increasing knowledge. No need to go meta with doubting the paradoxes because paradoxes are produced by logic. One turn of this screw back please!
What I am saying is that we have approached the body-should dilemma in many different ways by now, and we do not solve it. So it is more and more clear to me that we need to reformatie our axioms. and maybe we need to tchill hink along the lines of a body and a mind are just not separate entities. Now, to follow through that axiom…
Then again we seem to come to a hegelian view of contradictions... maybe it's time (at least for me) to understand it more. That, I guess, appears to be another way to deal with paradoxes or dilemmas, besides a change of axiomatic truths. Don't know for sure. I may be fatally wrong. Sorry again!
That is also known as the non-duality approach to the mind-body problem... and it can lead to the extremes of all is matter, or all is conscience... if there isn't enough clarity to integrate both apparently different sides of what constitute us...
I haven’t read enough, but it seems to me that “our” western logic is fairly coherent in signaling that there is a dilemma there. To me that means more and more that our logic is insufficient… or simply wrong. What’s your take?
Wow. The dilemma may rest in considering dilemma as a valuable tool or not. If we choose it is not valuable, then it was valuable in letting us resolve it. Then, a russellian paradox emerges. One could say that where logic exists, it can't avoid getting rid of paradoxes... or ilogical constructs. Mamma mia!
easy there, cowboy. You are giving a extra twist to the screw, and that is not needed:
The normal development of philosophy, as far as I can understand it, is that you put some postulates/axioms, you develop them, you explain reality as much as you can with them. Hopefully, at some point your axioms will end up in paradoxes and incoherences (that Kuhn says will be absorbed up to a point and silly popper claims that they are immediately recognized) and those will force you to reformulate your axioms.
NObody, at least not me, is questioning this way of approaching reality/increasing knowledge. No need to go meta with doubting the paradoxes because paradoxes are produced by logic. One turn of this screw back please!
What I am saying is that we have approached the body-should dilemma in many different ways by now, and we do not solve it. So it is more and more clear to me that we need to reformatie our axioms. and maybe we need to tchill hink along the lines of a body and a mind are just not separate entities. Now, to follow through that axiom…
Then again we seem to come to a hegelian view of contradictions... maybe it's time (at least for me) to understand it more. That, I guess, appears to be another way to deal with paradoxes or dilemmas, besides a change of axiomatic truths. Don't know for sure. I may be fatally wrong. Sorry again!
don’t be sorry. I feel that I should also refresh my hegel… hum…