Recent comments in /f/philosophy

Reelableink9 t1_je740k2 wrote

Reply to comment by EthosPathosLegos in Kafka sought to unmask the world that hides beneath what we call reality. What mattered to him were our intrinsic, subconscious experiences, in all their absurdity and apparent irrelevance. by IAI_Admin

I’m not so sure, i still think the subconscious is the result of the final layer. Its most likely that we cannot interpret the hidden layers. Your subconscious is just the output the brain gives when thoughts are initiated with certain inputs, ie. you prompt your inner monologue instead of being verbal etc

3

SpeckDackel t1_je73c9i wrote

Reply to comment by mr_ryh in Kafka sought to unmask the world that hides beneath what we call reality. What mattered to him were our intrinsic, subconscious experiences, in all their absurdity and apparent irrelevance. by IAI_Admin

I think the feelings of Gregor Samsa the first sentence gives you is not accurately translated in the English version. The ungeheures (uncanny/giant/unheard of) Ungeziefer (unpleasant and unwanted insects like cockroaches are Ungeziefer, insects people/society don't like) is a metaphor for how he feels/is treated by his family; not really a physical state. Based on how Samsa then treats this metamorphosis as a practical problem to overcome and live his "normal" life, I always felt like this physical state is simply a manifestation of his/Kafka's inability to follow the rules of and take part in society just by being too different. The rules of society (and his father/family) become impossible to follow, and the uncannyness of one's existence expose the uncanny rules of the middle classes Gregor Samsa desperately wants to participate in. But as the rules define the life of everyone in this world and don't allow one to be different, it destroys him in the end. Being uncanny and unwanted by society dooms the protagonist from the first moment (metaphorically he is doomed to perish by being hurt with the apple by his beloved sister in the beginning).

29

Kangewalter t1_je711a0 wrote

Reply to comment by bortlip in A Proof of Free Will by philosopher Michael Huemer (University of Colorado, Boulder) by thenousman

You're interpreting "we can only believe the truth" as "it is impossible for us to believe anything but the truth", while the relevant sense is clearly "it is possible for us to hold true beliefs without any false beliefs." Huemer does infer the former is true if determinism is true in step 5, but he needs the third premise for that (If determinism is true, then if S can do A, S does A.)

Also, the conclusion isn't necessarily self-defeating, it just seems implausible.

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_je6j485 wrote

Reply to Kafka sought to unmask the world that hides beneath what we call reality. What mattered to him were our intrinsic, subconscious experiences, in all their absurdity and apparent irrelevance. by IAI_Admin

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

EthosPathosLegos t1_je6fqta wrote

Reply to Kafka sought to unmask the world that hides beneath what we call reality. What mattered to him were our intrinsic, subconscious experiences, in all their absurdity and apparent irrelevance. by IAI_Admin

The more I learn about AI the more I realize our subconscious is probably what computer scientists call "hidden layers" which are constantly evaluating sensory data for patterns with which to create our consciousness. These pattern recognition outputs get really weird (think Google's deep dream) and that's probably what we see when we inspect and study our subconscious depths.

20

cybicle t1_je6br95 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Our age of crises needs Bollnow’s philosophy of hope by ADefiniteDescription

Thank you for the clarification, u/Melodic_Meringue_506. You obviously understand Buddhism better than I do.

My assumption was that Buddhist desire didn't apply to biologically reflexive wants, such as thirst caused by dehydration -- so hope for a drink of water was a desire resulting from suffering, not vice versa.

I think your introduction of the concept of connection is what had been missing, since the first post in this subthread of the main thread. It clarifies the semantics of the of Buddhist concepts regarding hope, and seems better than using desire, in this context.

Obviously, my gut level understand isn't very good. I take Buddhism lightly, because, like Maslow's Hierarchy (the subject of this post), it seems like the goal is not relative to most people's life.

At less aspirational levels, I think both ideologies offer good advice, as long as you don't focus on the basically unattainable pinnacle. Many other philosophies offer similar advice without beating you over the head with such a big carrot.

Is there something similar to hope, which people who are able to practice Buddhism (at the gut level) can use to bolster their resilience, without fostering attachment?

1