Philosophy & Scientific Methodology

For those who wish to establish a relationship with Satan.

Topics of discussion include: Demons, Magick, Satanic Witchcraft and much more!

http://www.joyofsatan.org/

Moderators: HP Mageson666, High Priest Jake Carlson

User avatar
ASQV13886662080
Posts: 94

Philosophy & Scientific Methodology

Postby ASQV13886662080 » Thu May 17, 2018 11:07 pm

I am starting this thread for any and all who are interested in contributing to this all encompassing topic which involves influential people of the philosophical and scientific emphasis, which can certainly include advanced artistic topics which merge with science.

Obviously, citing jooish people is not appropriate as they are more than likely to have stolen the work from another without due credit, a primary example of example such is albert einstein.

I often see a lot of people trying to make ancient Greco-Roman philosophers and leaders look like they were completely incapable of scientific reasoning as though they were just apes in fancy clothes, and thats another thing Id like to discuss which is the elimination of these baseless he said she said slander campaigns against our heroes of knowledge.

It is always my priority to be a bridhe keeper, someone who can rectify the paradox in the gaps of things seemingly in conflict, though not as obviously as some things in nature are truly at opposition to eachother, but more precisely that many things only seem opposed yet are necessary in equilibrium.

Please, do not take my word about opposition in nature into an all end all context, Im referring to necessary operations and configurations in nature which allow a system to succeed, as for example a utopian civilization which is only so not because of a vague delusion of "peace" but one which is truly peaceful because it prepares for war and is always aware of threats if threats at all they are.

A lot of times there are reactions people don't realize is in proportion to something seemingly contrast from it, such as how logic is to ensure the knowing of things while passion is what makes life worth it in experiencing stimulation and complex growth simply to indulge and exist in harmony with nature.

You see, I was beginning to feel that based on my experience seeing joos use rhetoric and logic to their own end, along with all of the materialistic skeptics, that logic was just some overrated machine minded methodology not meant for complete beings, but always knew deep down there was something obvious which was that logic is the information, but it doesn't make the decision for you, it only reveals the apparent truth in which you will inevitably decide what you are really meant to when all else is known of yourself and your place in reality.

By logic, I don't mean what people call "common sense" (which I personally know to be heuristics and disdain such), but the actual mathematical rhetorical scientific logic as is used in argument, debate, persuasion etc.

It used to feel as though everything would be reduced to fatalistic determinism, and I despised feeling that way as it was as if we have no real free will, until I later redefined how free will works and how one should view freedom as with the introduction to such with the posts of HP Mageson and HP HoodedCobra.

So, now I am a lot more secure and learning to balance these aspects of logic (logos) and passion (pathos).

For some reason I feel as though I want to just delete what Ive written here because my sense of self is only just beginning to recuperate, but I know I desire constructive criticism, and communication for essential and fundamental matters, not superficial biases.

So to kickstart this topic, Id like to introduce the inquiry on Charles Sanders Peirce, and see what others think of the likes of him and William James?

As opposes to Rene Descartes's skepticism, Peirce and James are pragmatists and prefer to find the reason of doubt rather than simply doubting, as this puts equal pressure on the skeptic and their opponent to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

I used to find a lot of Peirce's works too complicated, but really I was just too inexperienced with analysis at that level until recently, and Im beginning to relate to pragmatism, as opposed to the "skepticism" of today's materialists (really a belief in doubt itself which as an occultist I have many contradictions against).

The one thing I always argue against - which people usually misinterpret what I say based on the first phrase I use to describe such fallacious approach to inquiry - is "common sense".

The common sense is one of two things but as with everything can be a complex dynamic of the two: one, something hardwired in our potential intellect and sentience to avoid malignancies and acquire beneficiaries, and two, the preconditioning from experience of a specific environment as compared and contrasted to another totally different one.

In the latter case, the example Ive grown fond of using is one who believes that just because there is a colorless and odorless liquid in an inconspicuous cup that it must be water, and due to overwhelming thirst they take their presupposition for granted and drink something that can kill them instantly.

The word for this is heuristic, as well as the many "god of the gaps" arguments that people use to justify how they are "just right and thats just how it works", when really there is a complex system behind the thing they take for granted as being true.

By having constant programming of simplistic explanations - *but certainly not fundamentally accurate as with spiritual and occult axioms* - you begin relying on these intellectually lazy methods of asserting an apparent truth whether it was successful or not the first time, which could very well not work in a different environment and situation.

Basically, do not take things for granted, one cannot assume anything, but if all you do is doubt, you cannot move forward, and here resides the conflict of incentives by scientists to risk their well being for transcendental experience and knowledge.

I look forward to thorough discussion with the more studious SS and even those who just want to learn from the topic, as that is what we all ought to be doing here.
The path of Sanatana Dharma is not with vice, but with balanced adaptation. Acknowledge your true self and natural law will sort the rest out.

HAIL SANAT KUMARA & THE DAEMON MAHA SIDDAH DEVA!!!!!

User avatar
ASQV13886662080
Posts: 94

Re: Philosophy & Scientific Methodology

Postby ASQV13886662080 » Fri May 18, 2018 3:12 pm

ASQV13886662080 wrote:I am starting this thread for any and all who are interested in contributing to this all encompassing topic which involves influential people of the philosophical and scientific emphasis, which can certainly include advanced artistic topics which merge with science.

Obviously, citing jooish people is not appropriate as they are more than likely to have stolen the work from another without due credit, a primary example of example such is albert einstein.

I often see a lot of people trying to make ancient Greco-Roman philosophers and leaders look like they were completely incapable of scientific reasoning as though they were just apes in fancy clothes, and thats another thing Id like to discuss which is the elimination of these baseless he said she said slander campaigns against our heroes of knowledge.

It is always my priority to be a bridhe keeper, someone who can rectify the paradox in the gaps of things seemingly in conflict, though not as obviously as some things in nature are truly at opposition to eachother, but more precisely that many things only seem opposed yet are necessary in equilibrium.

Please, do not take my word about opposition in nature into an all end all context, Im referring to necessary operations and configurations in nature which allow a system to succeed, as for example a utopian civilization which is only so not because of a vague delusion of "peace" but one which is truly peaceful because it prepares for war and is always aware of threats if threats at all they are.

A lot of times there are reactions people don't realize is in proportion to something seemingly contrast from it, such as how logic is to ensure the knowing of things while passion is what makes life worth it in experiencing stimulation and complex growth simply to indulge and exist in harmony with nature.

You see, I was beginning to feel that based on my experience seeing joos use rhetoric and logic to their own end, along with all of the materialistic skeptics, that logic was just some overrated machine minded methodology not meant for complete beings, but always knew deep down there was something obvious which was that logic is the information, but it doesn't make the decision for you, it only reveals the apparent truth in which you will inevitably decide what you are really meant to when all else is known of yourself and your place in reality.

By logic, I don't mean what people call "common sense" (which I personally know to be heuristics and disdain such), but the actual mathematical rhetorical scientific logic as is used in argument, debate, persuasion etc.

It used to feel as though everything would be reduced to fatalistic determinism, and I despised feeling that way as it was as if we have no real free will, until I later redefined how free will works and how one should view freedom as with the introduction to such with the posts of HP Mageson and HP HoodedCobra.

So, now I am a lot more secure and learning to balance these aspects of logic (logos) and passion (pathos).

For some reason I feel as though I want to just delete what Ive written here because my sense of self is only just beginning to recuperate, but I know I desire constructive criticism, and communication for essential and fundamental matters, not superficial biases.

So to kickstart this topic, Id like to introduce the inquiry on Charles Sanders Peirce, and see what others think of the likes of him and William James?

As opposes to Rene Descartes's skepticism, Peirce and James are pragmatists and prefer to find the reason of doubt rather than simply doubting, as this puts equal pressure on the skeptic and their opponent to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

I used to find a lot of Peirce's works too complicated, but really I was just too inexperienced with analysis at that level until recently, and Im beginning to relate to pragmatism, as opposed to the "skepticism" of today's materialists (really a belief in doubt itself which as an occultist I have many contradictions against).

The one thing I always argue against - which people usually misinterpret what I say based on the first phrase I use to describe such fallacious approach to inquiry - is "common sense".

The common sense is one of two things but as with everything can be a complex dynamic of the two: one, something hardwired in our potential intellect and sentience to avoid malignancies and acquire beneficiaries, and two, the preconditioning from experience of a specific environment as compared and contrasted to another totally different one.

In the latter case, the example Ive grown fond of using is one who believes that just because there is a colorless and odorless liquid in an inconspicuous cup that it must be water, and due to overwhelming thirst they take their presupposition for granted and drink something that can kill them instantly.

The word for this is heuristic, as well as the many "god of the gaps" arguments that people use to justify how they are "just right and thats just how it works", when really there is a complex system behind the thing they take for granted as being true.

By having constant programming of simplistic explanations - *but certainly not fundamentally accurate as with spiritual and occult axioms* - you begin relying on these intellectually lazy methods of asserting an apparent truth whether it was successful or not the first time, which could very well not work in a different environment and situation.

Basically, do not take things for granted, one cannot assume anything, but if all you do is doubt, you cannot move forward, and here resides the conflict of incentives by scientists to risk their well being for transcendental experience and knowledge.

I look forward to thorough discussion with the more studious SS and even those who just want to learn from the topic, as that is what we all ought to be doing here.


Warning, typos abroad.
The path of Sanatana Dharma is not with vice, but with balanced adaptation. Acknowledge your true self and natural law will sort the rest out.

HAIL SANAT KUMARA & THE DAEMON MAHA SIDDAH DEVA!!!!!


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cacique Satanás, Satanic Eagle and 8 guests