Philosophy Made Simple: No Tears, No Nonsense

Amanda Jackson5 said:It’s a clever little thought experiment, but experience usually tells us that swapping out labels for the sake of appearances doesn't actually change the substance of what's being discussed—nor does it change how people actually perceive it. We could go around embracing the spirit of political correctness by calling Black people African Americans, or referring to the Rom community as Rom, or even rebranding gay people as gay (or maybe just invoking the spirit of Manitu), but at the end of the day, it carries zero weight. In fact, when you make these changes purely on a surface level without touching the underlying reality, those new terms eventually become just as loaded and offensive as the old ones. It just starts this endless cycle where you have to invent new euphemisms to replace the old ones, *ad infinitum*. If my memory serves me right, I think Pinker touched on this exact phenomenon in Blank Slate.

Thanks, I'm doing my best...

But experience just shows us that simply swapping out a label doesn't actually change the substance... renaming something doesn't shift the underlying reality or how we truly grasp what's being discussed... it's all just surface level...

It isn't just about the experience itself... it goes deeper than that. It's about the very definition of the signifier...

In the spirit of political correctness, we could call Black people Africans, Romani people Romans, and homosexuals gays... or perhaps follow the spirit of Manitou...

Either we just go around hitting each other, if we’re going to keep misinterpreting one another like this...

But there’s really no substantial meaning behind it. Not just that... in situations like this, where the change is purely cosmetic rather than actually changing the core substance, those new labels eventually become obnoxious too. And then you have to swap them out for something else, and the whole cycle just repeats itself indefinitely...

It’s not that I don't see where you're coming from, but I think you missed the point... I was actually being quite specific about where I was heading with this...
Just one signifier... spirit of time... It just covers way too many different concepts...
You say... spirit of time... indicating...😁 The prime cause neural activity... 😁Then you get some joker chiming in with, "What, like Casper?" And honestly, I think they’re completely missing the point. They’re too busy focusing on the literal stuff you mentioned instead of actually grasping the underlying idea... which is what you were trying to convey. But Casper, along with a whole host of other figures, is just one way that the "spirit of time" manifests itself. It's part of a much larger framework, involving things like volatile invertebrates and all that...
I know deep down that nothing is actually going to change, even if you decide to call on Casper, or that guy from the lamp, or even the one hanging by the chain above your head and calling him Manitou... I'm certainly not suggesting we do any of that...
I’d suggest you try to pin down that prime cause neural activity and give it a different label... just so people don't come after you with that whole volatile invertebrate nonsense. Of course, if you decide to swap it out for Manitou instead, they'll probably just come down on you even harder...😁.
Manitou is really just a satirical take by that vulgar materialist... honestly, it serves the exact same purpose as the volatile invertebrate... 😁
Look, your example about calling homosexuals "gay" is actually a perfect illustration of how the relationship between a signifier and its meaning can shift entirely... Fifty years ago, if you called someone gay, it just meant they were cheerful...
If some straight guy walked up to you today and said, "I'm gay," just because he was in a great mood, people would probably just give him a weird look... like he was being awkward or something. And if he actually tried to double down—if he insisted that being "gay" was just his way of describing how cheerful he felt—he’d basically become the laughingstock of the whole office... everyone would just start making jokes at his expense...

If my memory serves me right, I think Steven Pinker touched on something like that in "The Blank Slate"...

And if he’s lying, then he didn't write it.😁

Joseph Bailey41 said:Well, that's just the way the world works these days. ☕

😁
You're joking, but honestly... that actually works in my favor.👍
The "spirit of time" isn't a "volatile invertebrate time," so it can't be "Manitou time" either...

Amanda Jackson5 said:Heidegger actually referred to the Manitou of time as "Self" (or "man," if my memory serves me right), which didn't exactly move the needle for him either. He did go around giving different names to other various Manitouim, though. If you step back and look at the whole mess, all you really get is this massive, unprecedented tangle of terms and labels that eventually just bleeds into a total muddle of thought. It’s this weird illusion of progress—as if changing a label could somehow achieve something meaningful—which seems to stem from a certain innate tendency toward delusion, much like the superstitions you might find in some more primitive cultures.

I guess that clears things up now.

It seems to contribute to the illusion of progress—which is supposedly achieved through renaming—that the spirit is inherently deluded into believing that changing a name changes the essence or the core of something... something you see in all (to use a politically incorrect term) primitive cultures.

Is that inherent to Casper, or to the volatile invertebrate, or to Manitou?😁 You see how you unconsciously used the label in a completely different context. Unless you think it's inherent to the prime cause neural activity... If that's the case, we're beyond help...😁
Actually, with primitive cultures, you see exactly the opposite. Conservatism—refusing new terms and resisting change to outdated ones—is more of a hallmark of reactionary thought. But it was a masterful attempt on your part... hats off to you. Whoever can, let them understand...

Amanda Jackson5 said:To be honest, it’s not really. I meant to get back to you on this a while ago, but it slipped my mind. I suspect the confusion stems from some old-school scholasticism and the messy ways Aristotle's work was translated, especially regarding his distinction between passive and active intellect. If we look at the Latin term *intellectus*, which basically means the intellect, the Greek equivalent would be *nous pathetikos* versus *nous poietikos*. You could think of it as a rough parallel to the divide between empiricism and rationalism—or, if you prefer the heavy hitters, what Kant (and later Hegel) categorized as *Verstand* versus *Vernunft*.

Nah, reason is dianoia, while the intellect is nous, both in Aristotle and Plato. Reason is all about putting things together and breaking them down—you know, like linguistic or math analysis. But nous? That’s more like intuition. It’s almost like a direct perception; you either see it or you don't. There’s no building or deconstructing involved—Aristotle even uses the word "touch" to show how immediate it is. It’s still part of thinking, though. Maybe today we’d just call it an "insight." Like, basic logical principles don't come from analyzing; they're the prerequisite for any analysis. Once you see the truth of a logical principle, there's no going back. It’s kind of like Ramanujan, where he'd just get these math theorems handed to him by a goddess (that would be the nous part), but then he’d struggle to actually prove them (which would be the dianoia part).

Hegel is pretty harsh toward Schelling when it comes to rejecting that whole "intellectual intuition" thing, even if he still wants to keep that split between reason and intellect in a different way. I guess to him, the intellect is more like reason in motion—like a sort of meta-reason that sees how reason itself moves. 🤔

I guess I just can't get enough of Parsifal lately. It’s honestly such a trip. James Lee77 says:
...I don't know about this, man. It just feels... off. I guess maybe I'm overthinking it, but something about this whole thing isn't sitting right with me. Just my two cents, I suppose. 🤔

Man, what even is "Being" anyway? Like, seriously, how does an American even wrap their head around the whole concept of "being" vs. "Being"—you know, like the actual state of existence versus just... existing? It’s such a trip.

Look, I'll break this whole thing down for you so simply that even Einstein's maid could get it—with plenty of pictures and examples, and without anyone needing to pull their hair out or grind their teeth in frustration.

You know that classic high school definition? The one kids just parrot back during physics class, hoping they won't get grilled on philosophy during the next period? I guess fighting is just what being alive is all about. It’s kind of part of our DNA, you know? Maybe that's just how we're wired..

What does that even mean? I guess I'm just saying... bit by bit, right? It all adds up eventually. Maybe. So, there's this concept where something is just what it is because of its core essence—like, I don't know, "thingness" or whatever. Take a triangle. A triangle is a triangle simply because it has three sides. That’s the whole deal, right? That's the essential part. Whether it’s a right triangle or not, or if it's colored blue or red, or if the sides are 3 inches or 8 inches... honestly, that stuff is totally random. It doesn't change the fact that it's a triangle. It's like, a doctor is a doctor because they actually practice medicine. Everything else about them is just extra fluff that doesn't define their profession. I guess it's all about what really matters versus just random details.

So, what's up? I guess it’s just a little bit of a creature. Maybe?So, basically, anything that just *is*—like a rock, a person, a number, some genetic code, Beethoven's symphony, Americans, or even that Madeleine cake from Proust's memory, or maybe Gandalf... those are all beings. They exist, right? I mean, they all exist in their own way. Like, Gandalf is just a fictional character, while a rock is a physical object, but they both "are." So, what actually connects them? What’s the core essence behind all that? That's the thing. Yeah, they really are.. Ta I guess it’s just a little creature.So, if they actually are, then it’s called: essence. Essence is basically the core of everything—it's what makes anything exist at all, you know? It's like the fundamental soul of being.

hiddenpuma75 said:...BEING 🤔

Honestly, what on earth is this concept of BEING?
How does an American even wrap their head around the distinction between "being" as a verb and "Being" as an actual entity or state of existence?
I’m asking for a breakdown so simple that even one of Einstein's most vocal assistants could grasp it—complete with visuals and examples, and hopefully without anyone needing to grit their teeth or shed tears of frustration.

=====
SPIRIT 🙂

For instance, I’ve noticed that our friend Sigmund uses the term "spirit" with such sovereign confidence and intimacy—it’s almost as effortless as you all reading these lines and tapping away at your keyboards.

And yet, Cave and Wand always seem to stumble over that very word— SPIRIT 🙂 because whenever they hear it, they immediately jump to some invisible entity that exists outside our 3D world, like some kind of gaseous, formless phantom...

My hope is that in this thread, we can finally clarify both the things we know and the things we don't regarding these fundamental concepts. We tend to toss them around so casually and recklessly, often with an unearned sense of certainty. ...

I mean, maybe there’s actually some point to talking about the spirit in triads. I guess? Just a thought. Body, soul, spirit.So, if the cave and the wand don't end up running off, I guess you could just rename the whole thing to... Earth, the Universe, and the Multiverse.I mean, look at this place. You've even got some pretty legit minds weighing in on this stuff—people like Frege, Popper, and Penrose. They aren't exactly clueless, you know? The whole idea behind this three-fold structure—it’s pretty wild when you really sit down and think about it. I guess we’re talking about how everything just layers on top of itself, right? It’s like we aren't just living in one single reality, but there’s this constant movement between different levels of existence. Maybe it’s like looking at a fractal or something. You have the immediate stuff happening right in front of you, then there’s the deeper logic underneath, and then that massive, overarching framework that ties it all together. It feels almost overwhelming if you try to grasp it all at once, but I think there's something beautiful in that complexity. It makes me wonder if our usual way of seeing things is just too narrow. We tend to focus on the surface level, but there’s definitely more going on beneath the hood. I don't know, maybe it’s just my way of looking at it, but I feel like understanding these layers changes how you view everything else. It’s heavy stuff, for sure.

darkbadger8 said:Thanks, I'm doing my best...

But experience just shows us that simply swapping out a label doesn't actually change the substance... renaming something doesn't shift the underlying reality or how we truly grasp what's being discussed... it's all just surface level...

It isn't just about the experience itself... it goes deeper than that. It's about the very definition of the signifier...

In the spirit of political correctness, we could call Black people Africans, Romani people Romans, and homosexuals gays... or perhaps follow the spirit of Manitou...

Either we just go around hitting each other, if we’re going to keep misinterpreting one another like this...

But there’s really no substantial meaning behind it. Not just that... in situations like this, where the change is purely cosmetic rather than actually changing the core substance, those new labels eventually become obnoxious too. And then you have to swap them out for something else, and the whole cycle just repeats itself indefinitely...

It’s not that I don't see where you're coming from, but I think you missed the point... I was actually being quite specific about where I was heading with this...
Just one signifier... spirit of time... It just covers way too many different concepts...
You say... spirit of time... indicating...😁 The prime cause neural activity... 😁Then you get some joker chiming in with, "What, like Casper?" And honestly, I think they’re completely missing the point. They’re too busy focusing on the literal stuff you mentioned instead of actually grasping the underlying idea... which is what you were trying to convey. But Casper, along with a whole host of other figures, is just one way that the "spirit of time" manifests itself. It's part of a much larger framework, involving things like volatile invertebrates and all that...
I know deep down that nothing is actually going to change, even if you decide to call on Casper, or that guy from the lamp, or even the one hanging by the chain above your head and calling him Manitou... I'm certainly not suggesting we do any of that...
I’d suggest you try to pin down that prime cause neural activity and give it a different label... just so people don't come after you with that whole volatile invertebrate nonsense. Of course, if you decide to swap it out for Manitou instead, they'll probably just come down on you even harder...😁.
Manitou is really just a satirical take by that vulgar materialist... honestly, it serves the exact same purpose as the volatile invertebrate... 😁
Look, your example about calling homosexuals "gay" is actually a perfect illustration of how the relationship between a signifier and its meaning can shift entirely... Fifty years ago, if you called someone gay, it just meant they were cheerful...
If some straight guy walked up to you today and said, "I'm gay," just because he was in a great mood, people would probably just give him a weird look... like he was being awkward or something. And if he actually tried to double down—if he insisted that being "gay" was just his way of describing how cheerful he felt—he’d basically become the laughingstock of the whole office... everyone would just start making jokes at his expense...

If my memory serves me right, I think Steven Pinker touched on something like that in "The Blank Slate"...

And if he’s lying, then he didn't write it.😁

😁
You're joking, but honestly... that actually works in my favor.👍
The "spirit of time" isn't a "volatile invertebrate time," so it can't be "Manitou time" either...

I guess that clears things up now.

It seems to contribute to the illusion of progress—which is supposedly achieved through renaming—that the spirit is inherently deluded into believing that changing a name changes the essence or the core of something... something you see in all (to use a politically incorrect term) primitive cultures.

Is that inherent to Casper, or to the volatile invertebrate, or to Manitou?😁 You see how you unconsciously used the label in a completely different context. Unless you think it's inherent to the prime cause neural activity... If that's the case, we're beyond help...😁
Actually, with primitive cultures, you see exactly the opposite. Conservatism—refusing new terms and resisting change to outdated ones—is more of a hallmark of reactionary thought. But it was a masterful attempt on your part... hats off to you. Whoever can, let them understand...

With those precise guidelines, we've mostly solved the issue over in post #12.

The rest of it? That just depends on whether people actually use their heads and put in the work to follow them.

hollowpuma762 said:That specific philosophical idea would be identified by the Greek term Pneuma, the English Spirit, the Hebrew Ruach, and locally, it's commonly known through the phrase "Holy Spirit."

One part of the problem solved, I guess.

Now you're just making stuff up as you go.

Or maybe the Great Spirit, Plankton, or whatever else comes to mind.
"To be or not to be" isn't a school of philosophy, it's just a logical fallacy...
Besides, the way you're building your arguments could probably be described as "ex Podex."😁

darkbadger8 said:The issue with the word spirit is that it’s a total polysemy.
Take English, for example: ghost, spook, apparition, genie... they can all be translated through the lens of "spirit," so it’s no wonder there's so much confusion.
We used to have better, more distinct terms back in the day... well, things change...
When you look at the word in context, it gets even messier:
The Holy Spirit, acting in the spirit of an agreement, or that creature with a chain around its head, a spirit in a bottle... you could go on forever.

Then, of course, we have the philosophical concept of spirit as some kind of immaterial essence that doesn't physically exist but is still "there"—not just present, but somehow performing a magical function that enables brain activity, interacting with neurons to occasionally produce intelligence, though more often just stupidity.

I suspect this specific description of "spirit" is a frequent subject for philosophical posturing.

So, I humbly suggest that in the 😁spirit of 😁quality discussion, we consider attaching a different word to that definition.

Specifically, I propose replacing the word "spirit" in philosophical discourse with Manitou.
Let me explain.
First, imagine that next year Jeep releases two different models of the Grand Cherokee.
They are identical in every way, except for one thing:
One has the title "Grand Cherokee Manitou" on the door, while the other says "Grand Cherokee Spirit."
Which one would you buy?
The answer is neither, because you can't afford them anyway.

Manitou is defined as follows: A spiritual and fundamental life force. It is omnipresent and manifests in everything: living beings, inanimate objects, the environment, events, and so on.

Furthermore, Manitou has two aspects that aren't mutually exclusive:
Aashaa Manitou—the Good Manitou, and Otshee Manitou—the Evil Manitou.
When a child pets a bunny, that's Aashaa Manitou acting on their neurons.
When a kid breaks a window with a baseball bat, the kid isn't necessarily evil; rather, Otshee Manitou is manifesting through their brain activity.

In certain traditions of the Algonquin Native Americans, Aashaa and Otshee are unified under the Great Spirit, who is the supreme being—God.
I suggest we keep calling Him God, though, because according to His own explicit Old Testament declarations, He is "jealous," and it's well-documented that He can be quite difficult when He's angry.
CLICK

hollowpuma762 said:That specific philosophical idea would be identified by the Greek term Pneuma, the English Spirit, the Hebrew Ruach, and locally, it's commonly known through the phrase "Holy Spirit."

One part of the problem solved, I guess.

Now you're just making stuff up as you go.

Actually, I'm using satire and irony here to imply the exact opposite of what I'm explicitly stating. You could call it benign sarcasm...
It isn't trolling; it's an attempt to defend materialism against dualism while trying to be witty...
Sigmund said it was a "good joke," some other user thinks it's a bad attempt at humor, but you're the only one who completely missed the point...
From what I noticed in a different thread, a sense of humor isn't exactly your strong suit...
Wittgenstein said that an entire body of philosophical work could consist of nothing but jokes. If someone were to claim that all of philosophy is a joke, that would be sarcasm...
I'd suggest looking up the Wiki definitions for sarcasm, irony, and satire...
To really get the hang of them, I'd recommend reading "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift...

James Lee77 said:Nah, reason is dianoia, while the intellect is nous, both in Aristotle and Plato. Reason is all about putting things together and breaking them down—you know, like linguistic or math analysis. But nous? That’s more like intuition. It’s almost like a direct perception; you either see it or you don't. There’s no building or deconstructing involved—Aristotle even uses the word "touch" to show how immediate it is. It’s still part of thinking, though. Maybe today we’d just call it an "insight." Like, basic logical principles don't come from analyzing; they're the prerequisite for any analysis. Once you see the truth of a logical principle, there's no going back. It’s kind of like Ramanujan, where he'd just get these math theorems handed to him by a goddess (that would be the nous part), but then he’d struggle to actually prove them (which would be the dianoia part).

Hegel is pretty harsh toward Schelling when it comes to rejecting that whole "intellectual intuition" thing, even if he still wants to keep that split between reason and intellect in a different way. I guess to him, the intellect is more like reason in motion—like a sort of meta-reason that sees how reason itself moves. 🤔

1) Nous IS NOT the mind.

Nous is an aspect of the mind.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/nous

2) Nous isn't intuition.

When you cultivate a level of awareness that allows different modalities to function together—one of which happens to be intuitive—that's when Nous manifests.

3) "Reason" is a newer concept and it isn't the same thing as dianoia.

4) Reason isn't a skill; it's a state of being.

darkbadger8 said:Or maybe the Great Spirit, Plankton, or whatever else comes to mind.
"To be or not to be" isn't a school of philosophy, it's just a logical fallacy...
Besides, the way you're building your arguments could probably be described as "ex Podex."😁

Actually, I'm using satire and irony here to imply the exact opposite of what I'm explicitly stating. You could call it benign sarcasm...
It isn't trolling; it's an attempt to defend materialism against dualism while trying to be witty...
Sigmund said it was a "good joke," some other user thinks it's a bad attempt at humor, but you're the only one who completely missed the point...
From what I noticed in a different thread, a sense of humor isn't exactly your strong suit...
Wittgenstein said that an entire body of philosophical work could consist of nothing but jokes. If someone were to claim that all of philosophy is a joke, that would be sarcasm...
I'd suggest looking up the Wiki definitions for sarcasm, irony, and satire...
To really get the hang of them, I'd recommend reading "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift...

Look, you’re still just pouring out pure fantasy here, rambling away like some spoiled brat with his fingers stuck in his ears, even after being handed actual guidelines.

darkbadger8 said:Or maybe the Great Spirit, Plankton, or whatever else comes to mind.
"To be or not to be" isn't a school of philosophy, it's just a logical fallacy...
Besides, the way you're building your arguments could probably be described as "ex Podex."😁

Actually, I'm using satire and irony here to imply the exact opposite of what I'm explicitly stating. You could call it benign sarcasm...
It isn't trolling; it's an attempt to defend materialism against dualism while trying to be witty...
Sigmund said it was a "good joke," some other user thinks it's a bad attempt at humor, but you're the only one who completely missed the point...
From what I noticed in a different thread, a sense of humor isn't exactly your strong suit...
Wittgenstein said that an entire body of philosophical work could consist of nothing but jokes. If someone were to claim that all of philosophy is a joke, that would be sarcasm...
I'd suggest looking up the Wiki definitions for sarcasm, irony, and satire...
To really get the hang of them, I'd recommend reading "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift...

The truth is, you're just strutting around here in a fit of verbal self-indulgence, tossing the very instructions meant to help you untangle this mess right into the trash.

Who cares about your "I" this and "me" that? This isn't about you.

...

But hey... let's try to be constructive for once and use this latest display of human stupidity to look at two things: a) why philosophy isn't for everyone, and b) why raw intellect is worth absolutely nothing if you don't have the character to back it up.

...

darkbadger8 said:Thanks, I'm doing my best...

But experience just shows us that simply swapping out a label doesn't actually change the substance... renaming something doesn't shift the underlying reality or how we truly grasp what's being discussed... it's all just surface level...

It isn't just about the experience itself... it goes deeper than that. It's about the very definition of the signifier...

In the spirit of political correctness, we could call Black people Africans, Romani people Romans, and homosexuals gays... or perhaps follow the spirit of Manitou...

Either we just go around hitting each other, if we’re going to keep misinterpreting one another like this...

But there’s really no substantial meaning behind it. Not just that... in situations like this, where the change is purely cosmetic rather than actually changing the core substance, those new labels eventually become obnoxious too. And then you have to swap them out for something else, and the whole cycle just repeats itself indefinitely...

It’s not that I don't see where you're coming from, but I think you missed the point... I was actually being quite specific about where I was heading with this...
Just one signifier... spirit of time... It just covers way too many different concepts...
You say... spirit of time... indicating...😁 The prime cause neural activity... 😁Then you get some joker chiming in with, "What, like Casper?" And honestly, I think they’re completely missing the point. They’re too busy focusing on the literal stuff you mentioned instead of actually grasping the underlying idea... which is what you were trying to convey. But Casper, along with a whole host of other figures, is just one way that the "spirit of time" manifests itself. It's part of a much larger framework, involving things like volatile invertebrates and all that...
I know deep down that nothing is actually going to change, even if you decide to call on Casper, or that guy from the lamp, or even the one hanging by the chain above your head and calling him Manitou... I'm certainly not suggesting we do any of that...
I’d suggest you try to pin down that prime cause neural activity and give it a different label... just so people don't come after you with that whole volatile invertebrate nonsense. Of course, if you decide to swap it out for Manitou instead, they'll probably just come down on you even harder...😁.
Manitou is really just a satirical take by that vulgar materialist... honestly, it serves the exact same purpose as the volatile invertebrate... 😁
Look, your example about calling homosexuals "gay" is actually a perfect illustration of how the relationship between a signifier and its meaning can shift entirely... Fifty years ago, if you called someone gay, it just meant they were cheerful...
If some straight guy walked up to you today and said, "I'm gay," just because he was in a great mood, people would probably just give him a weird look... like he was being awkward or something. And if he actually tried to double down—if he insisted that being "gay" was just his way of describing how cheerful he felt—he’d basically become the laughingstock of the whole office... everyone would just start making jokes at his expense...

If my memory serves me right, I think Steven Pinker touched on something like that in "The Blank Slate"...

And if he’s lying, then he didn't write it.😁

😁
You're joking, but honestly... that actually works in my favor.👍
The "spirit of time" isn't a "volatile invertebrate time," so it can't be "Manitou time" either...

I guess that clears things up now.

It seems to contribute to the illusion of progress—which is supposedly achieved through renaming—that the spirit is inherently deluded into believing that changing a name changes the essence or the core of something... something you see in all (to use a politically incorrect term) primitive cultures.

Is that inherent to Casper, or to the volatile invertebrate, or to Manitou?😁 You see how you unconsciously used the label in a completely different context. Unless you think it's inherent to the prime cause neural activity... If that's the case, we're beyond help...😁
Actually, with primitive cultures, you see exactly the opposite. Conservatism—refusing new terms and resisting change to outdated ones—is more of a hallmark of reactionary thought. But it was a masterful attempt on your part... hats off to you. Whoever can, let them understand...

Get lost! 🤣

Joseph Bailey41 said:Get lost! 🤣

😁 "Ain't Afraid of No Big Bad Wolf" 😁

I just had a little epiphany that maybe our best way to describe a paradox would be
AMBIGUITY, and I really felt compelled to share that thought with you all 🙂

Wikipedia is great for facts, but let’s be honest—it can be a total snooze fest!
I’m looking for some good examples of (philosophical) paradoxes

========

A PARADOX

Think of it as an original take that flies in the face of common sense and clashes hard with mainstream opinion. It’s that weird logic where you're somehow "both naked and freezing" or "too wealthy to afford cheap goods."

One of the most clever ways this plays out is in a dialogue by LeBron James in his work *The Man from Ozark*: "Mom, why is it so cold in our room?" "Because we're out of coal, honey." "But why don't we have any coal?" "Because Dad doesn't have a job." "And why doesn't Dad have a job?" "Because he has too much coal."

Unlike an oxymoron or simple irony, a paradox doesn't just rely on two direct opposites. Instead, it’s built on elements that are simply fundamentally inconsistent with one another.

hiddenpuma75 said:I just had a little epiphany that maybe our best way to describe a paradox would be
AMBIGUITY, and I really felt compelled to share that thought with you all 🙂

Not really. Ambiguity and paradox aren't even in the same ballpark.

bluemason3 said:Not really. Ambiguity and paradox aren't even in the same ballpark.

Fine then, I suppose we don't always have to cling to this unbearable obsession with complexity, common sense, and boring facts like a drunkard clings to a lamppost. After all, if we let our guard down, we might actually stumble upon a correct conclusion by accident. Just imagine if that happened to Parsifal; he’d probably spiral into some kind of inauthentic existence.

bluemason3 said:Not really. Ambiguity and paradox aren't even in the same ballpark.

And then there’s this guy, a walking masterclass in bad teaching.

He’s busy criticizing things without actually explaining what's wrong or offering a single correct solution.🙄

It reminds me of something > once said:

They won't enter the kingdom of heaven themselves, but they sure love lecturing everyone else who wants to! 🧐

(By the way, hiddenpuma75 claims the Gospels are just mythology.🙄
What an absurd take. To most people, myths are just boring old stories that don't mean much anymore. I mean, does anyone actually care what Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster had to say?

But look at the Gospels—they are incredibly engaging, universally applicable, and deeply profound lessons for life.🙂
Myths just don't carry that kind of weight or literary merit.
Why?

Because myths are products of the imagination—even if that imagination is deep and inspiring—whereas the events in the Gospels actually happened. It’s as simple as that.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Fine then, I suppose we don't always have to cling to this unbearable obsession with complexity, common sense, and boring facts like a drunkard clings to a lamppost. After all, if we let our guard down, we might actually stumble upon a correct conclusion by accident. Just imagine if that happened to Parsifal; he’d probably spiral into some kind of inauthentic existence.

So, what was this philosopher actually getting at? 🤔
He’s started imitating Heidegger's prose style. 🙄 😛

Could the author, or someone else, or even nobody at all, help me out here? What exactly was the poet Sigmund trying to tell the prosaic hiddenpuma75?🤔

hiddenpuma75 said:And then there’s this guy, a walking masterclass in bad teaching.

He’s busy criticizing things without actually explaining what's wrong or offering a single correct solution.🙄

It reminds me of something > once said:

They won't enter the kingdom of heaven themselves, but they sure love lecturing everyone else who wants to! 🧐

(By the way, hiddenpuma75 claims the Gospels are just mythology.🙄
What an absurd take. To most people, myths are just boring old stories that don't mean much anymore. I mean, does anyone actually care what Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster had to say?

But look at the Gospels—they are incredibly engaging, universally applicable, and deeply profound lessons for life.🙂
Myths just don't carry that kind of weight or literary merit.
Why?

Because myths are products of the imagination—even if that imagination is deep and inspiring—whereas the events in the Gospels actually happened. It’s as simple as that.

You're completely off base. Totally wide of the mark.

bluemason3 said:You're completely off base. Totally wide of the mark.

I'm a little lost here, but what I do get is that you still haven't offered

a) our specific term for a paradox

and
b) explained why using "ambiguity" is incorrect instead of just sticking with "paradox."

Edit: I’ll try to be civil and avoid getting sucked into an argument about why potatoes aren't irons.

a) I'm not familiar with the term you used, though "contradiction" is probably the closest thing I can think of.

b) Ambiguity is an existing concept where a word or phrase refers to something else entirely, and etymologically, it aligns much more closely with that than with your usage. It describes a word or expression that can have multiple meanings or interpretations, which don't necessarily imply a logical opposition.
For instance, the phrase "master philosopher" could be interpreted ambiguously as a master of philosophy (a more precise term) or a master of some other trade (like a baker or a carpenter) who happens to dabble in philosophy (plus, there's the colloquial layer where "philosophy" might just mean someone likes to ramble aimlessly, adding another level of ambiguity). So, the phrase is ambiguous or polysemous, but it isn't paradoxical.
On the other hand, a phrase like "anti-philosophical philosopher" isn't really ambiguous; it would be considered paradoxical.

Regarding the topic—that very possibility of ambiguity is exactly why serious engagement with any intellectual or scientific field usually involves developing a specific internal terminology. This creates a way of expressing things that is clearer and more precise than everyday speech, specifically to prevent misinterpretations.
(It's also one reason why math is so vital in K-12 education; at that stage, it's the closest students get to the linguistic precision required by science.)

In contrast, you have spiritualists and New Age types who, perhaps more than any other group, intentionally (though not always consciously) rely on poorly defined, multi-purpose terms (like spirituality or enlightenment). These allow people to easily project their own mental baggage onto them and create (subjective) illusions of meaning.

In short, it makes sense that obscurantism leans toward vague language, while analytical thinking aims to build a more unambiguous system of communication.

hiddenpuma75 said:So, what was this philosopher actually getting at? 🤔
He’s started imitating Heidegger's prose style. 🙄 😛

Could the author, or someone else, or even nobody at all, help me out here? What exactly was the poet Sigmund trying to tell the prosaic hiddenpuma75?🤔

He was basically trying to echo what Barack Obama once implied—that it would be easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for some obscure, bottom-tier indie musician to ever find their way into the gates of a celestial republic.