Originally posted by josephw
How do you know then, when Truth appears, that you will recognize it as Truth?
In fact, the Prosocratic philosophers dismissed anthropomorphism and replaced the names of the gods with given terms, turning the empiricism and the personal impressions into specific theories of reality according to the evaluation of the mind. This kind of philosophy is focused on aletheia and the Prosocratic philosopher tries to decipher the physical worlds by means of the evaluation of the mind. So you run and you crash on a tree -Pain, Primal Cause-Effect during your interaction with the environment. And you cannot forget/ overcome this aletheia, and of course you have to be able to communicate this specific aletheia to the others that they crashed not yet on a tree.
The Prosocratic philosophers were conducting elenchus. Empedocles and the Pythagoreans were dogmatic and their theology is different than the other Prosocratic philosophers. Parmenides is not a shaman although he offered his philosophy as a result of a religious apocalypse, because his goddess does not urge the people to believe but to evaluate by means of their own logic/ mind. Therefore the Prosocratic philosophers are not against empiricism but they accept it as a tool, and even Empedocles said that “you must monitor which way everything is manifested, and you have neither to trust your eyes more than your ears or your ears more than your taste, nor to refuse to trust some other sense of yours since all your senses are agents that they feed your mind with pieces of information; but you have to understand how everything appears into being” (my translation). And Heraclitus said that “the eyes and the ears are false witnesses to the ones that they have barbarian soul”, pointing out that ones’ senses unveil aletheia analogous to ones’ mind. Therefore the Prosocratic philosophers were using science in order to back up their opinions, and the most well known scientist philosophers were the Pythagoreans. But attachment of any kind is a killer, and the Pythagoreans ended up hooked on their language -the Math-, beaten badly from the aletheia that the Map is not the Territory. The lesson we took from the Pythagoreans is that we must not walk carrying our boat on our back even when we are expecting a t-storm.
The Prosocratic philosophers conceived the whole universe/ Kosmos as a huge hypermachine, therefore they had the feeling that Kosmos, the Nature, the Society and the Human unleash their reality based on the same cosmological, biological and physical laws. This is the reason why their philosophy was deductive instead of inductive, and furthermore this technique of theirs is the reason why their aletheia was under attack by Bacon, who was not a scientist and was using the inductive method alone in order to bring up his theories of reality, his aletheia, at his “Novum Organum”.
Of course Bacon today is down the drain because his method excludes the scientific finds and evidence -just like theology does, and maybe this is the reason why once upon a time Bosse de Nage said that “Bacon is a fraud”. For, it is not anymore enough to put together the given data. The hardest philosophical task is to bring up solid hypotheses, and this is also the hardest task of the science, therefore the hardest task is to bring up solid theories of reality -otherwise you end up with no aletheia at all. So, when Bacon asks in …agony how one can find the objective aletheia, he ignores that one cannot find even her/ his own nose by means of mere observation, and so he failed. The way to find aletheia and to build up a solid theory of reality is to imply a holistic quantum approach and to proceed by means of elenchus at every level. So it is not false to make hypotheses -it is false not to make them. And it ‘s fine when we are balancing on uncertainty. And we have to extrapolate the consequences of a given hypothesis/ theory at every level according to Karma/ cause-effect. So Meth Inks we ‘ld better (for the time being and regarding this matter) join hands with Einstein and accept that it is false to try to establish aletheia based solely on observations -bye bye Bacon; it is our theory that decides what exactly we will observe.
Aristotle said it all (Metaphysics 1011b): “to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.” Now methinks this point of attention is personal, but it is also universal although it ‘s only Me. This point of attention is aletheia, therefore I am the Truth -no absolute truth. Whenever there is a consensus a specific aletheia is shared, but in order to become shared there must be a link between You and Me. Of course aletheia is empty because it lacks of inherent being: no knowledge no aletheia, no perception no knowledge -it’s only Me. Meditation, intuition and evaluation of the mind is the mind-only stuff from which aletheia is emerged. Once it is emerged, one cannot forget it