Mystical Angels

What philosophical thought do you choose?

- The world of symbols or (fuzzy) logic about meanings (perception about knowledge of things around us)? According to Lévy-Bruhl the primitive mind does not differentiate the supernatural from reality, but rather uses "mystical participation" to manipulate the world. The primitive mind doesn't address contradictions. The Western mind, by contrast, uses speculation and logic. Hilary Putnam – on meaning and reference - "Brains in a Vat". See below: Putnam hints that the brains in vat cannot have definite knowledge because the causal link between their 'thoughts' and meanings of things (around them) does not exist. The 'what' (the THAT) which exists is but mental pictures of something not real or present. Or the meaning, which exists, is but (only) images working as an unintentional 'that'- a no-existing demonstrative. P.S. Edmund Husserl considers the 'thinking thing' nonsensical to attribute ontological reality to a thing-in-itself that is distinct from the first order consciousness...

Public Comments

1. I would rather choose the Western mind using logic. Croce wants every idea to be pure as possible, as abstract and unpragmatic as possible. There is nothing here of that passion for clarity and practical content which made William James a beacon-light amids the mists of philosophy. Croce by using the idea of pure concept, it means a universal concept, life, quantity, quality, evolution or any thought which may conceively be applied to all reality. He proceeds to juggle these concepts as if the spirit of Hegel had found in him another avatar, and as if he were resolved to rival the reputation of the master of obscurity. By calling this "logic". Thanks for asking. Have a great day!
2. je choisis Rabelais ou encore CARPE DIEM
3. I am not a expert in these things but if I was to choose between all these three I would have to choose the Putnam description. I have to agree that the brain cannot differentiate reality with sensory input. I find Lévy-Bruhl description a bit too limiting. Although he chose the 'Western mind' as his subject matter, it is a bit too premature to discount all other influences to the 'Western MInd'. The implication is that all others minds are 'primitive' and that they do not use speculation and logic. Again I find this too limiting. I cannot comment too much on Husserl since I have to research a bit more into his thinking. Once again, I am not a philosophy expert but I do like to think about these things. Your theme seems to be about symbolic interpretations and the various philosophical nuances. It requires a lot more study into various thinkers in order to accurately appreciate your questions and make a half way intelligent response. For most people your question will seem a bit disjointed. I had to really think and study up before I made a response. I hope I have done some justice to your question. I think your question should be posed in a classroom setting rather than here in Y/A. Thank you for even reading my response.
4. Thanks for opening my eyes. I have primitive mind. Nature is real. Be it "Super" or "Sub". /whatever that is/ I do not differentiate supernatural reality from natural reality, it is simply reality. I am not a med doctor to differentiate human teeth from muscles. To me it is a human being as such. To reach higher, complex part of reality /nature-God/ you should use mystical approach. In my experience, sometimes it also works with direct /"Western"/ approach. This I use to manipulate my life - to some it may look as manipulating the world. Everything is within the God. Or call it nature or universe if you like. Believe it or not, connection does exist. All minds are connected. Don´t know about brains. Contradiction is as much part of reality as north and south, warm and cold, heaven and hell. Even primitive mind like mine understands this.