Philosophy (including Scientology) in one lesson.

This is a one shot clear understanding of philosophy (and Scientology's place in it).

Philosophy seems to be useless nowadays.

Psychology seems to be what people look toward to explain life.

I want people to understand and make philosophy useful in their lives again.

So here goes.

Before Socrates, philosophy was about nature.

The Greeks didn't have any equipment, so all the investigations about nature were theories they came up with to explain things which today we call science.

(This is why scientific terms are generally rooted on the Greek language)

These were before Socrates, so it is called Pre-socratic philosophy.

Then Socrates came along and changed everything.

He changed philosophy so that it examined one's life.

He tried to understand justice, beauty, knowledge itself, and truth.

But he, like Jesus, didn't write anything down.

However, he had followers or students, like Jesus, who did write things down, the most famous of which is Plato.

when Plato wrote he wrote in dialogues between Socrates and other people.

The title of what he wrote was usually the name of the work: Meno, Euthypro, Crito, Gorgias, etc.

Scholars are pretty sure that the early stuff Plato wrote were actual things Socrates said but we can never know for sure.

Scholars are also pretty sure that the later stuff Plato wrote are his own ideas even though he still uses Socrates as the one speaking in the dialogue.

Two of Plato's main ideas are discussed in his book "The Republic."

Those are the Allegory of The Cave and the Divided Lines.

The Allegory of the Cave is an explanation of learning and understanding. (And I once thought that was what Scientology was about!)

The divided lines was the drawing Socrates gives about the cosmos and the Idea of the Good (which some label God), down through the physical universe, and right on down to shadows or imitations of reality.

It is my contention (and mine alone as far as I know) that philosophy and mankind collectively have gone down that path instead of up.

Below the Idea of the Good are the Forms, these are the perfect concepts such as Beauty, Justice, Truth, etc.

To be able to comprehend these one must have intellection, which is to say they can only grasp these by and through their intellects.

Just below the Forms are mathematical objects, which are like a shadow of the Forms, and to comprehend these it takes understanding.

Below mathematical objects is the sensible world, and by sensible he means the things which we can perceive with our senses.

And to comprehend these one must have trust, that is, you have to trust what you are seeing.

Below that we have shadows, or images of the sensible world.

And to comprehend that a picture or an image is a shadow of something it takes imagination, not in the creative sense, but in the sense that you are able to see an image and understand it to be something real.

For example, you see the image of letters on the screen in front of you which spell P-L-A-T-O and you image the existence of such a person.

So here is the path that philosophy and mankind seems to have followed down to existentialism and the rest and even down further to psychology.

It first went from Plato's seeking to understand the Forms, or abstract ideas such as Truth, Justice, Beauty, to Descartes.

Descartes, who clearly understood the world as mathematical objects, tried to make that compatible with our senses.

So he came up with the idea of the spirit or mind versus the body. (And I once thought that was what Scientology was about).

Descartes said we have a mind and the mind can see things like 2 plus 2 equals 4, and therefore only the mind is reliable but not the senses.

You wouldn't believe the struggle that this idea went through.

But thanks to mathematical and mental reasoning, science came into existence.

Then David Hume found a loophole.

He said science, using empirical data, that is, data gotten from observation and experiment, cannot possible produce knowledge that is necessarily and universally true. By necessarily true means it cannot be any other way.

Hume pointed out that these things are just ideas in the mind.

If one sees a rock and then the sun rise and then the rock gets warm, we see a sequence--rock is cold, sun rises, rock is warm---but the idea of cause and effect is in our head, it is simply an idea we have about the sequence we saw.

All we saw was the sequence. To say it was cause and effect is us just taking an idea in our head and saying it is a real thing.

Hume said that science simply cannot say there is necessary and universal knowledge.

What happen in the past cannot ever be absolutely certain in the future.

No matter how many times Newton sees an apple fall there is no way that makes it binding on every apple in the future that shakes lose from the tree.

He's right you know.

But then came Kant to save the day.

Kant said, "Oh yes we can. Because our minds actively formats cause and effect and space and time into what our sense take in."

And therefore we can know that in the future cause and effect will still be how the universe operates because that is how our minds see it.

We know that in the future the universe will still operate on cause and effect because that is the only way we can see it.

If we had rose colored glasses glued to our faces then everything we see will be rose colored today and we can be certain that tomorrow everything we see will be rose colored.

We have cause and effect glasses glued in our minds and that is what we see today and that is how we can know that the universe will follow the laws of cause and effect tomorrow.

But there is a catch. We don't see the world as it really is, but only how our minds can conceive of it.

So science can never know things in themselves but only as our minds perceive it.

After Kant came a whole storm of ideas: from solipsism, that is, that the only reality is in our minds and what is true for you is true for you (And I thought that was what Scientology was about), to existentialism, that is, what is existence and experience all about, to materialism, that is, that the only thing real is matter.

As you may be able to tell, after Kant, who explained how the sensible world worked, philosophy and mankind dropped down to images.

Solipsism and Scientology, existentialism, analytic philosophy, empiricism, rationalism, pragmatism, and even psychology are all about the images and experiences we encounter and what they are and what they mean.

Philosophy is now at the stage were it is looking at the shadows on the wall just like the prisoners in Plato's Cave.

And mankind has reached a whole new level where most of life are simply images; TV, movies, pictures, computers. All images.

So there you have it.

In my opinion it is time to start all over again and follow Plato by trying to find out what Truth, Justice, and Beauty are.

I can tell you for sure that you won't find them in movies about Superheroes or in interpretations about Supermen or OTs.

Because that is what Scientology is all about.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

gbuck

oxymoron
This is a challenging post.

I'm more than just mildly interested in its direction, to where it may lead.

To get out of the images of reality that I build my life out of, I need to be aware of those images.
This forum has shown me that I've added a whole extra layer of images through Scientology with which to view and interpret the world.
As if I didn't have enough already. Those images determine what I see, that's clear. But they also effect my behaviour, and they are what I am.
Those, or any images, prevent me from seeing clearly.

I have to start right here it seems to me.
Get out of the shadows if you like.
But first I need to be aware of the shadows.

I'm enquiring...
 

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
All of what Philosophy is trying to accomplish can be summed up in 4 words: What is? And why?

If you go to college to study Philosophy today, they don't teach you how to philosophize. You just learn about what the great philosophers said. (So said LRH. Then again, have any of the great philosophers learned their craft in some sort of philosophy school?)

I, for one, have my own ideas about what is and why. The things I've posted in this forum are just the smallest fraction of my thoughts. I'm no Socrates or Plato but I have the advantage of having access to the collective knowledge of modern times. I should write up my ideas and make them broadly available.

Helena
 
Last edited:

F.Bullbait

Oh, a wise guy,eh?
Re :A Clastic Exercise

Stop being someone else's bitch. (gotta love that prison lingo!)


Slaughter all those wise guys.


Kill Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, Saul Paul, Augustine, Bacon, Newton, Kant, Hume, Spinoza, Santana, Crowley, Hubbard and so on.


Cut their heads off, stick them on pikes and let them rot.


Pile up those wise guy books and make a bonfire. Burn, baby, burn!


Dance around and whoop it up like monkeys!


Ain't life great?
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
If you go to college to study Philosophy today, they don't teach you how to philosophize. You just learn about what the great philosophers said. (So said LRH.) [Emphasis added.]

What did L. Ron Hubbard know about college education in philosophy?

Then again, have any of the great philosophers learned their craft in some sort of philosophy school?)

I can't think of any who didn't. You can look up their biographies in Wikipedia. Can anyone think of any significant philosophers who just invented it all by themselves?
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
Justice, beauty, knowledge and truth....Ron is the opposite of all that... an Opp Term (Opposition Terminal) to the virtues.

What a travesty.
 

Roland ami

Patron with Honors
Carl Popper made a great addition to your discussion when he pointed out that the downfall of Hume's argument is that it is expressed positively, whereas scientific knowledge is essentially negative.

You can never prove that something *is*.

You can however disprove the statement that something *is* if you can show an example of something "isn't-ing", as it were.

For example, The hypothesis "All horse sleep in beds" (where did I hear that?) is not proved by finding 58 examples of horses sleeping in beds. It is however disproved by a single case where a horse is clearly not sleeping in a bed.

He said, you cannot prove a hypothesis. You can however falsify it. And thus any hypothesis is only valid, only meaningful if it is stated in such a way that it can be falsified. It remains accepted as "true" only until it gets falsified, but it is never really true.

BTW, this is not an idea that LRH had. He thought that a few positive examples were enough to prove a hypothesis. So an awful lot of people were put on XDN or OTIII and told that the way out is the way through.

Roland
 
This is a challenging post.

I'm more than just mildly interested in its direction, to where it may lead.

To get out of the images of reality that I build my life out of, I need to be aware of those images.
This forum has shown me that I've added a whole extra layer of images through Scientology with which to view and interpret the world.
As if I didn't have enough already. Those images determine what I see, that's clear. But they also effect my behaviour, and they are what I am.
Those, or any images, prevent me from seeing clearly.

I have to start right here it seems to me.
Get out of the shadows if you like.
But first I need to be aware of the shadows.

I'm enquiring...

Great post!

I think almost all of us are in exactly the same place.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
All of what Philosophy is trying to accomplish can be summed up in 4 words: What is? And why?

If you go to college to study Philosophy today, they don't teach you how to philosophize. You just learn about what the great philosophers said. (So said LRH. Then again, have any of the great philosophers learned their craft in some sort of philosophy school?)

I, for one, have my own ideas about what is and why. The things I've posted in this forum are just the smallest fraction of my thoughts. I'm no Socrates or Plato but I have the advantage of having access to the collective knowledge of modern times. I should write up my ideas and make them broadly available.

Helena

Don't forget Huh?

I went to graduate school for philosophy and Hubbard is so full of baloney he should have changed his name to Oscar Meyer.

Some places actually teach people to think.

I was in two different schools.

One school's philosophy courses were like math classes, the other was deep thinking.

It depends on what school you are in.

As for your ideas you really should write them down even if you don't get them published.

But you should get them published too.

Think about, just about everyone here has had a lifetime of learning experiences.

You, like everyone here, has a lifetime of valuable experience which for sure would be of value to others also going through life.

Think of it as giving road directions.

Give people lots of ways of getting someplace and let them choose what suits them best.

some like the scenic routs, some like the fastest route, and some like me, like to stop the car and think (which is why I get honked at so much).

Seriously, Helena, you should give it some thought.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Re: Re :A Clastic Exercise

Stop being someone else's bitch. (gotta love that prison lingo!)


Slaughter all those wise guys.


Kill Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, Saul Paul, Augustine, Bacon, Newton, Kant, Hume, Spinoza, Santana, Crowley, Hubbard and so on.

snip

Actually, something like that did happen to many of them.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Carl Popper made a great addition to your discussion when he pointed out that the downfall of Hume's argument is that it is expressed positively, whereas scientific knowledge is essentially negative.

You can never prove that something *is*.

You can however disprove the statement that something *is* if you can show an example of something "isn't-ing", as it were.

For example, The hypothesis "All horse sleep in beds" (where did I hear that?) is not proved by finding 58 examples of horses sleeping in beds. It is however disproved by a single case where a horse is clearly not sleeping in a bed.

He said, you cannot prove a hypothesis. You can however falsify it. And thus any hypothesis is only valid, only meaningful if it is stated in such a way that it can be falsified. It remains accepted as "true" only until it gets falsified, but it is never really true.

BTW, this is not an idea that LRH had. He thought that a few positive examples were enough to prove a hypothesis. So an awful lot of people were put on XDN or OTIII and told that the way out is the way through.

Roland

Popper is right about that.

But Hume's argument was not so much about science than about certain knowledge and the different categories of thought.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
You lost me at the title.

I just don't get how scientology can be included in any real discussion of philosophy.

Maybe " Philosophy (including Jim Jones) in one lesson " would be more apt ?.

Someone disagreed with the post. Fine.

What I'd like to hear is someone - with a straight face - explain how scientology qualifies as philosophy.

People choose to be scientologists. Their choice. scientology got itself called a religion. Yeah well.

WHo but scientology calls scientology a philosophy ? I'm curious.
 
Last edited:
You lost me at the title.

I just don't get how scientology can be included in any real discussion of philosophy.

Maybe " Philosophy (including Jim Jones) in one lesson " would be more apt ?.

Cool. I threw in the Scientology for two reasons.

1) it claims to be an applied religious philosophy, because it wants to play with the big boys.

2) I wanted to show that if it tries to plays with the big boys it will always be the last one picked or not picked at all.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
Popper's defense against Hume is destroying the village to save it, though. Science is hard work, and nobody does it just to take another shot at disproving something. I don't think many scientists have even heard of Hume's point, but those who have generally just shrug.

Popper's position is debatable, anyway. Experiments do not necessarily disprove theories. Experiments are hard, and often they are wrong. A couple of years ago, for instance, there was an experiment with neutrinos that seemed to be traveling faster than light. The experimental team were serious scientists, not crackpots, and they only published their results after working really hard to find something wrong with them. It turned out, however, that there was a bad cable or something, and the timings were off by a few tiny fractions of a second, and when that was fixed, the disagreement with relativity went away. "Experiment falsifies theory!" was not the right scientific attitude in that case at all. The right scientific attitude was the one that everyone actually took: "Hmmm."

Theories can in fact be discredited by experiment. But with solid theories, the bar is high, and it's a long discussion. In the end I'll admit that Popper is probably basically right, but I think the way falsification works in practice is not as simple as he makes it sound. Abandoning a scientific theory is less different from losing faith in a religious belief than Popper makes it seem. And Popper's viewpoint is not, it seems to me, actually important in science. I think most scientists are not Popperians; they might end up politely agreeing with Popper, if pressed, but they would not find the argument very interesting.

Certainty isn't a big deal for working scientists. The point of science, for most of us, is not that it achieves certainty about either positive or negative knowledge. Science is looking closer at things, not to attain certainty, but just to look closer. The struggle of positivists to find some way in which science is superior to faith seems to me to be doomed, but irrelevant to science, anyway.
 
Top