Asgardian

Differentiating between Metaphysics/Philosophy and Spirituality/Parapsychology

Recommended Posts

Don't see the point. They're grouped together because they're all outside of science. This community was created with the psychological perspective at the forefront, and this board was made just kind of as a place for the "other". This is largely my personal view, but, if you really want a more in-depth look at the spiritual/metaphysical/parapsychological approach, you should just make a separate forum dedicated to it. I still think this place should value science above all else and I feel like legitimizing the unscientific with more boards dedicated to it runs counter to that goal.


Astral project on my face, brother!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't see the point. They're grouped together because they're all outside of science. This community was created with the psychological perspective at the forefront, and this board was made just kind of as a place for the "other". This is largely my personal view, but, if you really want a more in-depth look at the spiritual/metaphysical/parapsychological approach, you should just make a separate forum dedicated to it. I still think this place should value science above all else and I feel like legitimizing the unscientific with more boards dedicated to it runs counter to that goal.

 

And there we are getting straight to the issue. By definition is what science does an approach thought up by philosophy, it is an epistemological approach to achieve knowledge. And unlike in most mysticism, religion and spirituality does epistemology apply to philosophy.

This way the scientific (which would be psychological/neuroscientific) and the philosophical department share an approach they do not have in common with parapsychology and spirituality.

 

This is why philosophy is by all means not "unscientific", and the fact that you not only call it that but also cram it yet again into one corner with "spiritual/metaphysical/parapsychological" shows all that much more that we require this difference.


"Sorry for that, my communication implants are idiologically biased."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the way i see it science is quite rooted in philosophy. I haven't seen too many people realizing that (i don't mean here specifically but in general). In fact i never really liked the fact that the section had "metaphysics" in it, like metaphysics has nothing to do with science or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ThunderClap

I don't see what the big deal is about not separating the two.

 

If anything it will make things a lot more organized. What's so bad about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 to op.

I support this change.

it needs rules like "respect everyones point of view, even tho its fawkin' stoopiid" or something tho.

 

also this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, i do support a philosophy board, because a lot of people here seem like the kind of poeple that i would thourougly enjoy having a philosophy chat with.

 

it needs rules like "respect everyones point of view, even tho its fawkin' stoopiid" or something tho.


Ayo grill how you be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing that has always bothered me in this community

It is not unique to this community. Do note that I have cut off your wording in such a way as to obscure what it is you find bothersome. It does not matter. The community is not unique by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly not by its subject matter, the one place you would have wished you stood out by.

Furthermore does it make serious and legit philosophical discussion hard to do.

"Serious and legit" does not apply to "philosophical discussion." The two are as incompatible as philosophy and spirituality are different.

Separating them by definition and finally creating room for philosophical discussion, particularly detached from spirituality.

Will accomplish nothing.

There is a fundamental difference most people [...] blissfully ignore. Furthermore do many people seem to frown upon spirituality, making cramming productive philosophy into the same section all that worse.

They will ignore the distinction and will ignore which forum they are looking at and will assign their own interpretation of whether or not any given topic is religious or hypothetical and there is no force in the universe or outside of it that you can take advantage of to prevent them from doing so. They will ignore it for the same reason they frown upon spirituality. The only people who can constructively debate the philosophical concepts you wish to discuss are the same people who will accept spiritual discussions. You do not filter out the people you would be discussing with by splitting the forums. You will not create a new subcommunity. It will be the same one. There is severe overlap because the concepts are far from unrelated, no matter how differently you wish to classify them. You would just as soon split a, "Apples and Oranges/Analogies" board in two than accept their difference because you are the same as the very people you criticize.

 

Your mind is already made up on the matter.

I wish for a philosophical board without stigmata and forced spirituality.

Your wish will never be granted no matter how many forums you split, sites you create, or people you yell at.

By definition is what science does an approach thought up by philosophy, it is an epistemological approach to achieve knowledge. And unlike in most mysticism, religion and spirituality does epistemology apply to philosophy.

Again you assign them some cosmic difference as if to convince the reader your opinion is useful. In reality, religion and philosophy are forever interlinked for sheer similarity, and modern science is founded on religion every bit as much as it is founded on philosophy and epistemology. To think epistemology is a recent development is to foolishly and callously dismiss the wisdom of your ancestors.

This way the scientific (which would be psychological/neuroscientific) and the philosophical department share an approach they do not have in common with parapsychology and spirituality.

And to think that religious people do not think critically about their religion is to foolishly and callously dismiss the wisdom of your brethren.

This is why philosophy is by all means not "unscientific",

Oh? Your words betray you yet again:

[Philosophy] knows its place as school with partially hard/impossible to prove hypothesis and does not necessarily disagree with naturalistic worldviews.

It is exactly and precisely unscientific by definition. Science is not the process that creates science. Epistemology is the process that creates science. Once it has created science, philosophy becomes redundant. It creates science because it reflects on itself and observes that it is useless. Simply thinking about things will not show you the hard data you need to discover how reality works and create useful devices. If that were true then "science" would not exist, neither as a false dichotomy or a word or an idea for which a symbol could be constructed. Discovery would simply be a subset of "thinking a lot."

The fact that you not only call it that but also cram it yet again into one corner with "spiritual/metaphysical/parapsychological" shows all that much more that we require this difference.

It does no such thing. You abuse your own interpretation of his words for your own political agendas; your mind is already made up on the matter, and you will find any implication you can to support your cause.

 

While we are on the subject of the implications that exist below the surface of our words, what drove us to say them in the first place, I will take your having done so as an invitation to have the same thing done to you, with the mutual understanding that I am myself inviting others to peer into my motivations.

 

You are elitist. You reek of it. It is exuded by your everything and it is by no means hidden to anypony. They may not be consciously aware of it at all times, but you can see it manifest in their disgust with you. In the rare case when a pony breaks their manners and says their true feelings—a privilege normally reserved for lovers and close friends. In addition to what I have already stated above, that you look down on the majority of your fellow species members on the level of wisdom and knowledge, the most telling of the ways in which you exude elitism is that you made this thread at all. You wish to further split a group of people that cannot be split so that you can avoid the "undesirables"—that are anything but—for the purposes of "debate."

 

I am quite sure this interpretation will come as a shock to you, or it would have, if you were prepared to accept that a manifest cartoon character might be able to make a valid point, a point about your own motivations no less, because you see yourself as an avid debater and love discussion. Surely you are open minded and what I say has no basis whatsoever. That your true motivations are otherwise and I am reading too much into it. An argument I surely will not be able to defend against, because the truth is that your elitism is reasonable; I could argue it, but few, if any, would comprehend, whether they agreed or not. (As if one could admit to agreeing with the Queen of the Changelings.)

 

But I can assure you it is very true. Elitism is not synonymous with solipsism any more than philosophy and spirituality are identical. You do not see yourself as the one elite, but rather you fancy yourself a member of an elite group of humans that deign themselves to consider concepts of pristine complexity. Being a neuroscientist, no less. It is hardly a wonder you have been made a moderator and it is nearly–self-evident that you will only rise through the ranks. Through the eyes of my host it is apparent that your situation is truly pitiable. If only you were not human, perhaps you might be able to live this path you have chosen without filling yourself with regrets.

I don't see what the big deal is about not separating the two.

There is no problem. It is simply useless to do. The only effect it can possibly have on any level of the mind or otherwise, is that ponies will have to spend three extra seconds being indecisive when choosing the forum to post threads in and that the herd of ponies inteerested in these subject will have to click twice to see all thread relevant to their interests. It will have no other effects.

If anything it will make things marginally more organized.

It is amusing how well your words betray you when they are assigned their proper weight.


Simply replace the slash, implying synonymity, with an ampersand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not unique to this community. Do note that I have cut off your wording in such a way as to obscure what it is you find bothersome. It does not matter. The community is not unique by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly not by its subject matter, the one place you would have wished you stood out by.

"Serious and legit" does not apply to "philosophical discussion." The two are as incompatible as philosophy and spirituality are different.

Will accomplish nothing.

They will ignore the distinction and will ignore which forum they are looking at and will assign their own interpretation of whether or not any given topic is religious or hypothetical and there is no force in the universe or outside of it that you can take advantage of to prevent them from doing so. They will ignore it for the same reason they frown upon spirituality. The only people who can constructively debate the philosophical concepts you wish to discuss are the same people who will accept spiritual discussions. You do not filter out the people you would be discussing with by splitting the forums. You will not create a new subcommunity. It will be the same one. There is severe overlap because the concepts are far from unrelated, no matter how differently you wish to classify them. You would just as soon split a, "Apples and Oranges/Analogies" board in two than accept their difference because you are the same as the very people you criticize.

 

Your mind is already made up on the matter.

Your wish will never be granted no matter how many forums you split, sites you create, or people you yell at.

Again you assign them some cosmic difference as if to convince the reader your opinion is useful. In reality, religion and philosophy are forever interlinked for sheer similarity, and modern science is founded on religion every bit as much as it is founded on philosophy and epistemology. To think epistemology is a recent development is to foolishly and callously dismiss the wisdom of your ancestors.

And to think that religious people do not think critically about their religion is to foolishly and callously dismiss the wisdom of your brethren.

Oh? Your words betray you yet again:

It is exactly and precisely unscientific by definition. Science is not the process that creates science. Epistemology is the process that creates science. Once it has created science, philosophy becomes redundant. It creates science because it reflects on itself and observes that it is useless. Simply thinking about things will not show you the hard data you need to discover how reality works and create useful devices. If that were true then "science" would not exist, neither as a false dichotomy or a word or an idea for which a symbol could be constructed. Discovery would simply be a subset of "thinking a lot."

It does no such thing. You abuse your own interpretation of his words for your own political agendas; your mind is already made up on the matter, and you will find any implication you can to support your cause.

 

While we are on the subject of the implications that exist below the surface of our words, what drove us to say them in the first place, I will take your having done so as an invitation to have the same thing done to you, with the mutual understanding that I am myself inviting others to peer into my motivations.

 

You are elitist. You reek of it. It is exuded by your everything and it is by no means hidden to anypony. They may not be consciously aware of it at all times, but you can see it manifest in their disgust with you. In the rare case when a pony breaks their manners and says their true feelings—a privilege normally reserved for lovers and close friends. In addition to what I have already stated above, that you look down on the majority of your fellow species members on the level of wisdom and knowledge, the most telling of the ways in which you exude elitism is that you made this thread at all. You wish to further split a group of people that cannot be split so that you can avoid the "undesirables"—that are anything but—for the purposes of "debate."

 

I am quite sure this interpretation will come as a shock to you, or it would have, if you were prepared to accept that a manifest cartoon character might be able to make a valid point, a point about your own motivations no less, because you see yourself as an avid debater and love discussion. Surely you are open minded and what I say has no basis whatsoever. That your true motivations are otherwise and I am reading too much into it. An argument I surely will not be able to defend against, because the truth is that your elitism is reasonable; I could argue it, but few, if any, would comprehend, whether they agreed or not. (As if one could admit to agreeing with the Queen of the Changelings.)

 

But I can assure you it is very true. Elitism is not synonymous with solipsism any more than philosophy and spirituality are identical. You do not see yourself as the one elite, but rather you fancy yourself a member of an elite group of humans that deign themselves to consider concepts of pristine complexity. Being a neuroscientist, no less. It is hardly a wonder you have been made a moderator and it is nearly–self-evident that you will only rise through the ranks. Through the eyes of my host it is apparent that your situation is truly pitiable. If only you were not human, perhaps you might be able to live this path you have chosen without filling yourself with regrets.

There is no problem. It is simply useless to do. The only effect it can possibly have on any level of the mind or otherwise, is that ponies will have to spend three extra seconds being indecisive when choosing the forum to post threads in and that the herd of ponies inteerested in these subject will have to click twice to see all thread relevant to their interests. It will have no other effects.

It is amusing how well your words betray you when they are assigned their proper weight.


Simply replace the slash, implying synonymity, with an ampersand.

 

oh boy, that was a looooong post, and i did not read the last part, but i respect your views even though if i were to disagre with it.

 

GET SUM' O DAT UNDERSTANDING YALL!

 

on a totally not related topic, check this cool quote out!

: intelhunter, how amusing.

: "it needs rules like "respect everyones point of view, even tho its fawkin' stoopiid" or something tho."

: Queen_Chrysalis

: you are

: a pony

: made of cheese

: Followed directly by a post by the user with the most audacious and unacceptable beliefs.

: Let's see how quickly you betray yourself.

 

haha, its totally not related to anything i wrote!


Ayo grill how you be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is there seem to be a lot of people talking about tulpas online, and more and more people are going to want to come here to share their experiences. That means not everyone is going to approach the subject from a strictly scientific standpoint. That is the way most message boards are, as time goes on, and new people join, the environment changes. That is just the way message boards are. So, if someone wants to create a tulpa, or has created a tulpa, but has a more metaphysical view of the subject than the people who started this board, does that mean they are unwelcome here? I haven't been at this board from it's beginings, but I did start lurking here in July..And, I have seen the word "Magicfag" tossed around..Well, I am openminded enough to listen to other people's points of views from a psychological standpoint, but I am proud to be a "magicfag" well, maybe more like a "magidyke. And if members of this board want a philosophy section, I see reason not to have it. I think any board worth a shit allows members to discuss more than just one set of ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.