[jammies]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

and you know this because?

Well, Troutman was more succinct, but basically for "you" to be separate from your mind, something analogous to a soul must exist - so we might as well call it a soul. If there are souls, then there are 3 scenarios:

#1 - Your soul actually controls all mental activity, and the brain is merely a mechanism to interpret its commands. This idea can be discarded, as if this was the case, your brain wouldn't affect thought - it would be the other way around - and from direct observation of people with damaged brains we have seen this is not so.

#2 - The soul and brain have different areas of responsibility, and interact with each other. For this to be true, there would need to be gaps in our minds that the soul could fit itself into, or some kind of interface in the mind that the soul could communicate with. While this isn't impossible, there is zero evidence of either gaps or a dedicated interface found anywhere in the brain's structure, nor are either implied by what we know of the brain's systems. Such a claim should therefore be thought of as not only unproven, but extremely unlikely - if it was true, we SHOULD have seen evidence of it by now.

#3 - The soul mirrors the mind and exerts no control over it and is simply an immaterial copy of it. This is the hardest to refute, as a mind being mirrored and a mind on its own would be identical from any conceivable physical examination. On the other hand, such a soul would not be separate from the mind in the sense that a "you" could look at the mind from the outside in, so for our purposes in this discussion, it might as well not exist.

Further, on the other other hand, I can posit infinite scenarios of things that *might* exist but can never be verified, so while the idea of such a soul may be comforting, it isn't really useful in the sense that I can postulate its existence to get to some other point.

Originally Posted by peter12

It's easy to quote anyone out of context without trying to see what they are really getting at.

It's much easier when they make outrageous statements that no conceivable context can spin into being acceptable. "Women are inferior" - exactly in what context does that come out as being accepting of women as equals?

Originally Posted by peter12

Are we discussing philosophy and politics intelligently? Can we discuss it and understand it like Socrates and his students? Of course not. Socrates was poor, by the way.

Well, I'd say we understand philosophy and politics much better than Socrates - not through any fault of his, but because we have a much richer background and history behind us that informs our thoughts. Just as I know far more about physics than Newton, yet Newton is seen as a giant while so far my contributions have been limited to reading the popular literature about it.

As for Socrates being poor, that didn't stop him from being a man with leisure to think about philosophy. "Poor" implies he worked all day for a pittance and then went home exhausted to throw himself upon a pallet to sleep the sleep of the wretched. He certainly wasn't poor in the sense of being underprivileged and living hand-to-mouth.

Originally Posted by peter12

It's easy for you to argue this point. It's basic liberalism, we are all liberals and are inundated with its assumptions regarding human nature. You have the language and the politics on your side. As I said, I don't think you have the philosophy on your side.

No, it is not easy. You are setting up a straw man - that I am a typical liberal - when I am anything but. The current accepted theory is that humans are molded by society into whatever shape that society demands - this is liberalism, where the environment is to blame/credit for everything, and it is wrong.

On the contrary, I think that there are two natures that have a strong effect upon us before culture comes into the question: first, there is the shared nature of all humanity, where we are beings evolved to live in small tribal groups on the edge of the savannah, with definite differences between male and female, who love our children, who are suspicious of outsiders, and who have many other innate tendencies that cannot be fundamentally altered; second, each of us has a unique nature bequeathed us genetically by our parents, that has profound effects on both our personalities and talents, and that nature is affected by culture but cannot go too far from its antecedents any more than our shared nature can.

Culture is what gives our innate nature its chance to express itself - or be suppressed. Yet culture is neither an excuse to indulge the darker parts of our innate nature, nor is it the rationale behind the nobler parts of that same nature. Nor does our nature excuse our faults - each of us bears ultimate responsibility for all of our actions.

If you think all that is "liberalism", you are mistaken. Further, the idea that because someone lives in a liberal culture, they are doomed to share its outlook, is also plain wrong, and ironically a product of accepting liberal ideology to explain how people think.

Originally Posted by peter12

Once again, this is pretty basic stuff. Our science and liberalism essentially degrades humanity to the level of other animals to be studied.

"Our science and liberalism" doesn't need to come into the discussion - you are attempting to frame my argument as an argument from (scientific, liberal) authority, but that is not what it is.

Never mind trying to argue with your conception of whatever groupthink I am supposedly partaking of, just argue with what I'm saying directly. I make the polite assumption that you have ideas of your own and are not simply parroting what you learned in university, so do me the favour of assuming that I'm not a brainwashed disciple of the "scientists", "reductionists", or "liberals".

Further, your argument assumes that "finding the higher things' is incompatible with a humanity "reduced to animal nature". Humans are animals, yes - animals that think. It is the thinking that allows us to strive, and ponder, and create moral codes - and not any nebulous "difference" that forever separates us from the rest of the natural world.

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm not denying nature, nor the reality of humans be reduced to animal nature, I'm talking about finding the higher things. As I have demonstrated, philosophers or those who read philosophy are rather indifferent to material needs.

The ascetic idea that man can live on thought alone might be philosophy, but hedonism is a philosophy as well, so the blanket statement that philosophers are indifferent to material needs is not true; you would be better served by saying "Philosophers I admire are indifferent to material needs," which is well enough, but no longer reduces humanity to a war between philosophers and the unwashed rabble.

Originally Posted by peter12

Philosophy is just the pursuit of wisdom. Science is the pursuit of power. I have more that I want to say on this, but I am just sticking to my basic position.

"Power without wisdom is tyranny, wisdom without power is subservience." Somebody probably said that somewhere, and if they didn't, I'll claim it for my own.