Originally posted by StarrmanWhen you can perceive that which you are instead of that which you perceive, you're a step closer.
That's a precursor of human perception, I think, and (time for some more Bad Zen© ) unfortunately also a barrier to enlightenment. When you can perceive that which you are instead of that which you perceive, you're a step closer.
A koan! Bam! I like it!
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDepends what you're after. If you want to know if his philosophy is enlightening in some fashion, I'd have to say no (though I've only read the Ethics), personally he bores me to tears and I disagree with most of his premises and conclusions.
It wasn't meant to be a rhetorical question.
However, if you're looking for an different view from the Cartesian style of things and you want to look at the different opinions in that time, then sure, he's worth a read.
Originally posted by StarrmanWell, since you started this thread and all, you could say why you disagree with his premises, to begin with.
Depends what you're after. If you want to know if his philosophy is enlightening in some fashion, I'd have to say no (though I've only read the Ethics), personally he bores me to tears and I disagree with most of his premises and conclusions.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf I'm going to do that, not only am I going to be doing the assignment I have to hand in twice, but I'm guessing that I'll be on my own in the refutation process 🙂
Well, since you started this thread and all, you could say why you disagree with his premises, to begin with.
Originally posted by StarrmanTry refuting just one then. I'm curious to see your approach.
If I'm going to do that, not only am I going to be doing the assignment I have to hand in twice, but I'm guessing that I'll be on my own in the refutation process 🙂
(I treat all philosophy as a species of fiction, so I am not in the business of proof or refutation, but it's instructive to see how those who are go about their business.)