Felix metaphysics, philosophy of religion, Poetry

The Golden Buddha

A small plaster Buddha sits on the shelf 

On the bookcase in the closet

It being very nondescript, I glance at it

Plaster covered in golden paint

 

Seems asleep, but in meditation

I, feeling tired

Roll back on my back

Softly I hear “Douglas”

 

I glance, it’s not moved

I move again on my back

The statue says

 “I am the Buddha.”

 

I reply;

“You are a small golden statue.”

Now I know I must be sleeping

The golden buddha is not alive 

It can’t be the buddha

 

While this statue is not alive

Seemingly it spoke

But also a statue has no soul

Just a plaster cast

 

Is the plaster buddha a Buddha?

It has no soul!

Another thing that has no soul is the living Buddha

I roll over and go back to sleep

 

Or was I always asleep?

Felix nature, Poetry

Lightning Dance

A mountain plateau, isolate

Stretched for miles,

Through Wyoming

The driver turned away

 

Left alone waiting

For another ride

No one came

 

In the distance

Rainclouds roiled

Moving east

Bearing with abandon

 

Lightning stabbed the plateau

Licking the flat ground

Flashing and roaring

Dancing wildly

 

A deluge covered me.

Being the tallest thing

“Oh lightning” I muttered

“You might find me!”

 

A small ditch availed me.

I threw my face down

I Remembered that

Lightning searches shallows

 

Pleading for grace

The storm screamed

Shaking my body

Then passed me by

 

I rose unscathed

Shook the rain off me

Turned to the west

Waited for a ride

Felix Ethics, individualism

COVID-19: Brain Dysfunction and Enviro Work

COVID-19 can result in brain damage. The effect of COVID may be cumulative, that is, if you have COVID more than once, these subsequent infections may compound the damage from previous infections. Such facts about this damage to the brain must be foremost in the managerial class thinking.

The wisdom of office work in the aftermath of COVID is drawn into question as a practical matter. “DOGE”‘s advisory government members, Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy plan to save money by having civil servants who have worked remotely, be forced to work in traditional pre-COVID centralised offices. Those that refuse to do so would have no other option than to leave their jobs. This would not be the first time in history workers would be forced to work in potentially unsafe conditions, with the only alternative, losing their livelihood, if they refuse to follow the dictates of the managerial class.

Studies continue to show persistence among some people having long term COVID, such as “brain fog”. It may be the case that brain damage and other forms of long COVID suffered by some of these unfortunates can be irreversible. Brain damage may continue to negatively impact functioning, including ongoing deterioration of cognition in old age, although the extent of this cannot be known with certainty at the present. After approaching the latter years of life, only then will the full damage be shown.  COVID first only became prevalent in the past five years.

There are many other reasons why hopefully the bosses would not enforce such a policy requiring in office work if other alternatives could be found. Those with COVID, where there is harm to the other workers, (i.e., in poorly ventilated offices), if they worked remotely negative outcomes could be avoided. This would also make the families less at risk because remote workers would not be sick. Anything that decreases transmission is preferred, especially if it still is unclear the long-term course of any COVID infection or infections.

In the news it has been reported that after the COVID pandemic, students are scoring markedly lower on standardised tests. While studies show that children have a much lower risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID, persistent damage cannot be ruled out. A decrease in functioning is often attributed to the lack of interaction with peers when home schooled, which makes it crucial to know each individual who is or has been infected.

Using a sensitive diagnostic criterion, a serious look must be made to ascertain the outcomes of those in school classes in even “mild cases” and to make sure all these cases are identified and rigorously evaluated. The relationship between the seriousness of the individual infection and the risk of future persistent damage, (including residual long COVID) has not been quantified, although those with a severe infection seem to be more likely to acquire long COVID. Perhaps one might have mild COVID but persistent long COVID.  In any case one can still move forward with an effective strategy.

People who work in centralised offices are at greater risk of contracting COVID, as people who work in offices tend to be working more closely together in greater numbers, perhaps with poorer ventilation and therefore increasing the risk of transmission. Not only is such an environment favorable to virus replication, but over time as people continue to be effected, the damage wrought to the human body increases including the risk for permanent brain dysfunction.

The ethical problem becomes that not only the damage done to the individual is wrong, and can be avoided, but also the risk of the products of their labor, whether tangible or not, could have many deleterious outcomes on all aspects of vital civil service work as well as public work. This consequence of the civil servants production could have many unforeseen effects. Repeated infections further complicate the evaluation of ones functioning. The viability of critical products manufactured by such workers, could further be drawn into question with unforeseen consequences.

Under many circumstances there is no reason people cannot work efficiently while working remotely, if the managers so choose to allow it. In many cases such an outcome would be clearly preferred. With the age of the Internet and its advantages of Video Conferencing, Email, chat platforms; there is no reason much work cannot be done in this manner. Not only can the worker be protected, but the integrity of their products can be ensured.

Using materials such as gasoline, plastic, paper and other compounds, it is widely known that alternative  materials can be found for products that are environmentally sound, but the capitalist investment in old technologies and new strategies based on outmoded materials continues on with the status quo. Like gas and plastic, the capitalist may already own not only the materials of production, but the infrastructure to produce them, so it is not profitable to change course. This in turn can result in less than safe factory procedures, especially where there is a fertile environmental workplace where COVID can easily proliferate. Fortunately with some ingenuity such barriers can be overcome.

Not only was the US population greatly harmed by COVID and still is, not taking post pandemic realities seriously, including long COVID, which has not only further impacted the health of the US workforce, but also the viability and integrity of the products produced can be thrown into question. The issue of brain health, especially on a national scale must be seriously examined.

 

 

 

Felix Apprehension of Reality, epistemology, Ethics, objectivism, political philosophy, rhetoric

The Oblique Premise in Rhetoric and Counseling

Abstract

This paper attempts to show how the Logic Based Therapy [LBT] syllogism and the Enthymeme also called the Rhetorical Syllogism are in many ways related. An examination will be made of how these two compare, especially investigating the centrality of the major premise in both. Also discussed is how the major premises in both the LBT syllogism and the rhetorical syllogism, can be disguised, or even suppressed. This wily premise I will call the Oblique Premise.

 

 

Aristotle revolutionised the way we do deduction. His innovation in doing deduction is the syllogism. Applying the two premises and conclusion, proofs can be used to buttress a larger belief. Yet not all syllogisms are the same. Aristotle introduces the Enthymeme[i] where one (or more) of the premises or the conclusion can fall into question and may not be clearly understood because of the questionable nature of the major premise[ii]. The [LBT] subject may have inculcated beliefs based on societal norms where the syllogism can modify behavior.

The syllogism, are presented in many works which are coined today as the Organon. Not only was it used as a proof for deduction, but a similar model is also used for induction. The syllogism is presented as a device in his Rhetoric; referred to as an Enthymeme or the Rhetorical Syllogism which contains special characteristics.[iii]

This major premise can be missing from the argument unlike standard syllogisms. With the enthymeme, Logic-Based Therapists and Consultants wrestle with enthymeme like syllogisms where the major premise is crucial, and its importance may be largely inscrutable. These two types of syllogisms, Counseling based syllogism [CBS] or rhetoric based syllogisms [RBS] that are similar and may even be directly related. The enthymeme may be reflective, having a like nature of the LBT syllogism, including the major premise.

Both involve missing, suppressed, or unconscious major premises. Both [CBS and RBS] influence behavior by inducing a somatic reaction in the individual, especially in the conclusion. The rhetor uses RBS to bend belief, whether intentionally or blindly, and the sufferer of [CBS] misery often arises from similar fallacious states. These states are bound to logic based stories one tells oneself (CBS) or are told by another to themselves, or by themselves to themselves.  Both rely on thoughts, attitudes, and a universal bonding with the oblique syllogistic major premise.

Both involve a basic syllogistic structure; both are amenable to Modus Ponens, and by implication Modus Tollens as well, as well as other consistent logical structures. Often the Major Premise is a statement associated with is a Modus Ponens tying the minor premise and conclusion together. Because of these similarities, I claim that these two dictums (CBS and RBS) especially in the gestalt of the Rhetoric Based Major Premise [RBMP] and the Counseling Based Major Premise [CBMP]. These are not a different subject matter, but rather just the same dynamic, resting as different topics, which stand in opposition. These oblique major premises stand against each individual as two inverted mirrors facing each other.

The top of the rhetorical mirror where the [RBMP] reflects across from one mirror to the other, from the rhetor to the auditor, connects the two together at the same level bringing satisfaction or exhilaration. The reflection descends downward with the [CBMP] subject beginning with the loftiness of the rhetor, to the opposed mirror at the bottom causing despair and grief.

Depending on what is perceived by the receiver determines the message of the [CBS] and [RBS] syllogism. This can be universalised categorically in its expression of its Weltanschauung. On the contrary both the action of the CBMP and the RBMP can have a somatic effect being both depressing and exhilarating depending on the mode of action in the content to the receiver. This varies depending on norms of society. This is the uncertain nature of the oblique premise.

The rhetors [RBMP] reflects from the top of the mirror in its loftiness of oratory skill, having the virtues of ethos, pathos, and logos, straight across to the other mirror, while its reflection at the receiving mirror (the auditor) stands in awe of the rhetor or downward to the bottom of the opposing mirror the [LBT] subject who suffers greatly.

The LBT subject wallows in abject despair. Previous learning can be internalised being the cause of the malady. This suffering is externally applied by the rhetor, [RBS] and accepted by the [LBT] subject [CBS], where the purveyor of which the lie or mistruth is created by the demagogue (e.g. the rhetor).

This dual nature of both [CBMP and RBMP] impact the recipient (e.g, both the LBT subject and the auditor). These two ends of the mirror possibly being activated by the receiver (the auditor or the [LBT] subject) is a characteristic of the Major Premise’s obliqueness. These learned beliefs are internalised by both the [LBT] subject and the auditor. Of course, not all rhetoricians are demagogues and are very good people. For our comparison we will focus on the rhetorical (e.g, the auditor) or personal deception as it effects the [LBT] subject based on previous learning. This deception, the obliqueness of the syllogisms, can go awry.

This is a dynamic which a rhetor applies to an auditor, or what an individual [LBT] subject ultimately does to themselves using a similar major premise. This forms a possible error in reasoning. Both are subject to logical refutation based on major premises, which are suppressed, repressed, and may be unconscious.

Both syllogisms have the same structure. Like any other Aristotelian syllogistic argument, the actions of both the [CBS] and [RBS] can be seen in the traditional form with the two premises and then the conclusion which follows resolutely, although the proof may in [CBS] and [RBS] be unsound because of inconsistency of the major premise. The major premise is present or not or even in flux like Carroll’s Cheshire Cat[iv] from Alice Through the looking glass, appearing or disappearing at will.

As a result, both the [CBMP] and the [RBMP] have impetus from the fact that the oblique premise is malleable and is absorbed by the auditor or assumed by the LBT subject; and therefore, can have the greatest effect. The rhetorician finds solace in ethos (e.g., ethics or more specifically the normative inclusion of societal and personal norms), absorbed by the counseling subject themselves, or the seeming righteousness of the rhetor, and pathos (e.g., pain of the counseled or the pleasure and satisfaction of the auditor) and logos (e.g., the logical motif of a seeming universal truth or order).

These three dynamics process and modulate the ideas throughout. This process is difficult to see as the major premise and may be suppressed, repressed or even unconscious. In both logic-based paradigms, [CBS] and [RBS], this little known or unconscious oblique premise, [CBMP and RBMP], is the most pernicious cause of behavior change as one finds themselves confused in so many ways.

First, understanding the relationship in this hylomorphic process can help one better to understand the effects of [CBS and RBS]. Having this knowledge of the similarities between [CBS and RBS] and the position in the syllogism of [e.g., the CBMP and RBMP], one can flesh out the operant of its functioning. Lastly knowing that both positions are related, [RBS and CBS]; this will give us insight into how this process works, not only with the actions of a demagogue, but also one suffering from a pernicious logic causing a psychic malady.

The movement of the oblique major premise activates receivers at different positions on the mirror. The movement of the premise might be from Rhetor -> Auditor at the top of the mirror, Rhetor -> LBT at the top of the mirror, Rhetor -> Auditor at the bottom or Rhetor -> LBT subject at the bottom. On the other hand, the Rhetors position can be fixed. These positions vary according to their somatic outcome in the conclusion.

Understanding how this commonality in structure can happen, why it happens and ultimately how knowing these two separate positions (e.g., [CBS] and [RBS]) one can be successful in overcoming the obstacles this blindness brings.

In many cases pathos contains the emotional cathartic that is in the [CBMP] and [RBMP] which drive the conclusion and is therefore beyond cognition. This is the universal premise that holds categorically. It is these proscriptions (e.g., premises) masquerading themselves as a truth, that in fact can be subliminal or subconscious, moving toward seeming infinite divinity within the rhetor to the auditor, or at the bottom of the opposed inverted facing mirror an inferno with the LBT subject. This transience, translucence and variety in function gives the Major Premise its obliqueness.

Both can begin with an activating individual minor premises, a second universal premise and then a conclusion that follows necessarily [CBS and RBS]. The universal major premise demonstrates the ethical necessity and helps demonstrate the veracity of much of the pain and pleasure that ties the finite with the infinite, where logic forces the judgement of the existential lived condition in the syllogistic conclusion.

The proclamation of the rhetor, and the supplication of the sufferer, or the satisfaction of the auditor, can be bound together both allegorically in discourse and substantially in being. With this hylomorphic synergy, not only do these two sources (the rhetorician and the auditor or LBT subject (i.e., the subject, and the object), show similar structure, but an intertwining manifesting itself becomes apparent. Unwinding the primordial cause in one’s role as the philosophical practitioner and the understanding the rhetors tools can perhaps explain the birth of each.

Syllogisms are commonly presented as a form of inference, where if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true as well. Yet one feature of the premises is that one or more of the premises can be false, but the conclusion can still logically follow, and this can be the case in the Enthymeme. In this formulation one of the two premises is what I will call the existential while the major premise is universal with the conclusion following existentially. In the standard format of the enthymeme, the major premise is the universal premise. The conclusion often holds the somatic response

In Logic-based therapy (LBT) in the syllogistic structure there is the universal premise. In the enthymeme the major premise is assumed where the audience see their beliefs enshrined in universal truths. These truths are exemplified by the major premise as universal because they hold categorically. The LBT subject finds themselves bound by the same sort of universal premise, although in most cases these unfortunate individuals who suffer infirmities, the premise has a negative emotional import. While beyond the scope of this paper, it might be useful to consider such cases where [CBS] results in positive emotional affect from the activating premise (the minor premise) moving to the major categorical premise and ending with the conclusion. This is another example of the circumnavigation of the oblique major premise. Other forms of activation exist for the recipient.

These two formulations of universality in the major premise ([RBMP] and [CBMP]) both rely on a seeming universal truth to form or reinforce beliefs and associated dogma. The orator asserts truths about government and politics in addition to other subjects, the [LBT] subject can inadvertently tells oneself lies about individual failings.[v] These somatic results can and often are based on lies, whether it is the exhilaration of the auditor to the rhetors sleight of hands, or the despondency of the [LBT] subject.

The rhetor may speak to dissuade one, persuade, or cajole, or the [LBT] subject may internalize dialogue that punishes themselves. Both involve deception, although the demagogue’s oration is objectively the most pernicious, the [LBT] individual subjectively finds emotional incapacitation of their individual self the most destructive.

Like ordinary syllogisms, both the counseling and rhetorical syllogism are subject to refutation. This is the key to avoiding manipulation by the rhetor and the infirmity of the counseling subject, whether by counterexamples by another rhetor, or the philosophical antidote of the philosophical practitioner. This special characteristic of an enthymeme is called the refutational rhetorical[vi] syllogism, since they all rely on common knowledge, new facts may dissuade the auditor or the [LBT] subject.

How does this happen? The LBT subject may internalize beliefs and symbols about the way the things should be. These “shoulds” are firm beliefs which hold universally (and categorically). Because of the way things should be helps delineates shortcomings falling short of their lofty, and unrealistic, aspirations. The rhetors tools are often subconscious and maybe even unconscious, as these translucent arrows fly off of the rhetors oblique bow [RBMP].  These rhetorical statements [RBS] are surrounded by more general belief systems. “The world is unjust!” the rhetor or the LBT subject might proclaim. More often with the LBT subject one may try to be perfect but can never achieve their goal.

Like [RBS], [CBS] can have missing premises and act like a rhetorical syllogism although often with a negative import. In such cases the conclusion might be an emotion not consciously understood. Emotions are a product of a sort of intentional objects and ratings. The rule tends to be a modus ponens that holds universally and categorically.[vii]

Contrarily the orator of the enthymeme, when prevaricating platitudes, whether there is honest appraisal of these platitudes or not, purveys beliefs that confuses the facts. While the auditor might take these convoluted facts as a complete truth, which when examining an enthymeme, with its implied missing premise, does not fall into question. With the [RBMP] the demagogue conjures up the “rule” when this universal premise is constructed.

This rhetors major premise is below the “radar” and yet lies below as a truth trumpeting that which is clearly deniable or at least is malleable and uncertain. For example, one might think the foundations for employment are just or unjust. Depending on the audience, whether a previously discriminated group (i.e., farmworkers who become unionized) or a group that feels newly disenfranchised (i.e., workers displaced due to Artificial Intelligence). Depending on the audience’s contingent situation determines the meaning of the syllogism.

Perhaps the rhetor might say “This is what cooperation has brought you!” whether this refers to the audience of field workers newly unionised or the collective acquiescence in a non-union shop to the employer where the displaced workers are summarily dismissed because of AI. The first has a positive and the second has a negative somatic result. This can bring satisfaction or anger depending on the makeup of the audience.

Also, with the [LBT] subject, depending on their view of the world, especially the ethical ramifications of a situation can construct positive or negative results depending on the story one tells themselves.

These assumed selfishly held universal premises loom largely in the variety of things. The rhetor has at their disposal the keys to constructing syllogisms as a lynchpin for larger arguments. The rhetor may do this being blind to the result of the universal premise but often, at least in the case of the demagogue, works manipulatively or malevolently changing thought and therefore behavior.

These universal truths the rhetor expounds may be transferable to the LBT subject. Whether the rhetor is a politician, a minister, or a union organizer, this trust can be used to modify behavior in the individual. More-so it may be true that many of the truths that are inculcated by the individual auditor are from learned behavior. An individual may assume the role as teacher, or brandishing a school of thought, or even proclaiming societal norms.

In this relationship between the rhetor and the auditor, with the inverted mirror, the demagogue bestows “wisdom” on the docile and subservient subject, viewed as ascribing to the rhetor a character of magnanimity, or on the other hand this “ignorance” of the afflicted [LBT] subject of learned uselessness. This enables the rhetor to impact their subject’s behavior and contrariwise the [LBT] subject to perpetuate and even worsen their affliction.

In extreme cases the auditor remains entranced by the rhetor and the rhetor is looked upon as being infallible. In appearing before the auditor, the rhetor comes to signify that which the auditor (or [LBT] subject personally) sees as infallible: ethically, logically, and emotionally. This aggrandizement of the rhetor by the receiver finds the rhetors influential oblique arts are induced or enhanced in the subject; both the [LBT] subject and the auditor. While the rhetor cries “One must work hard to have a good life”, the LBT subject’s inner cognition is that they haven’t worked hard enough and deserve their lowly position in life and must eternally work harder, and because of the trauma and pain are driven to self-destructive thoughts and even self-destructive behaviors.

The universal premise serves as a focal point for this internalization of ethics, pain or pleasure, and the logic in the LBT subject or the auditor. All are specific tools used by the rhetor in the promulgation of an enthymeme [RBS] and by analogy the infirmity of the [LBT] subject due to the universal premise and the surrounding syllogism, the [CBS].

Not only does the subject, whether auditor or LBT subject, see the rhetor as a source of knowledge and perhaps virtue, but also since the rhetor has these perceived qualities, the logic shared with the subject finds the two joined together in the production of a universal truth (while often truth it may not be). This brings emotional aspect of satisfaction or pleasure in the auditor or pain in the LBT subject.

I assert these two types of major premises show a sort of similarity, at least in-kind in a role as a syllogism, especially the universal major premise that results in broken truths. These broken truths seem reliable but are not. The first broken truth is the deception of the demagogue who seems to speak earnestly, and especially with the use of the major premise. The second broken truth is an authority (i.e., the rhetor) in the [LBT] subject or lies one [LBT] tells themselves based on learning.

It seems conceivable that parallel strategies can be used to usurp the demagogue or to rescue the LBT subject through counterexamples. A courageous and enlightened auditor could come up with a refutative enthymeme using common sense or a philosophical practitioner could do the same and in addition come up with an antidote.

While it is unrealistic to use refutative enthymemes to solve all the world’s problems, they serve as an excellent starting point where first the individual familiar with the missing, suppressed; identifying the unknown oblique premise, one can devise strategies not unlike those that stop wannabe dictators or those who rescue a suffering soul. But perhaps this is a topic for another paper.

[i]                 W.D. Ross, ed., The Works of Aristotle, Translated into English  by Aristotle, XI Volumes (Oxford: Clarendon Press,  1928). For specific mention of relevant book and chapter numbers, etc., regarding the enthymeme in this series from Ross, consult the footnotes at the end of the introduction. Most central I believe are the following, Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Prior and Posterior Analytics. Also of value could be Aristotle’s De Sophisticis Elenchis, De Interpretatione as well as other works in Aristotle’s Organon. An understanding of Aristotle’s Topics would be instrumental in bringing the enthymeme into public discourse in a practical manner, and this is included in the above series. Also helpful is W.D. Ross, ed., Aristotle’s Prior and Posterior Analytics by Aristotle. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949)  Book 1-7. (24a1-29b29). Another excellent source is Robin Smith ed., Prior Analytics by  Aristotle. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1989). Book 1  Chapter 1-7. (24a1 – 29b29)

 

[ii] “Not so clear I think is the fact that infallible signs, can produce syllogisms that can be sound or unsound. One can say if there is smoke there is fire, but if no smoke does occur at a particular time (say they mistook for fog for smoke), then no fire need be present. In that case there is no correspondence someone’s assertion that there is smoke, and something actually burning.” While the argument may seem to be valid and sound, when no smoke exist the premise is false and the demonstration is unsound. It is important to note that if while the residual in the air was fog, therefore the individual is deluded and has no idea they are wrong, yet the syllogism seems sound.”

 

Deduction and Enthymemeic structure page 51

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Logical_Nature_of_Aristotle_39_s_Ent/cxP7KKCmxQsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=inauthor:%22Frame+Publishing%22&printsec=frontcover

Master’s Thesis

Douglas Frame

 

[iii] “The enthymeme must consist of few propositions, fewer often than those which make up the normal syllogism. For if any of these propositions is a familiar fact, there is no need even to mention it; the hearer adds it themselves. Thus, to show that Dorieus has been victor in a contest for which the prize is a crown, it is enough to say, ‘For he has been victor in the Olympic games’, without adding ‘And in the Olympic games the prize is a crown’, a fact which everyone knows.”

 

The Internet Classics Archive

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.1.i.html

 

 

[iv] From Alice in Wonderland

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice-VI.html

 

[v] “Rule: If I am no longer able to achieve professionally, then I am totally worthless and might as well be dead.

 

Report: I have done everything that I have set out to achieve professionally and there is nothing left for me to achieve in my professional life.

 

Emotion: Depression”.

 

Elliot D. Cohen. What Would Aristotle Do? Self-Control Through the Power of Reason (Kindle Locations 1524-1526). Kindle Edition.

 

[vi] (xxv) Solution (refutation) of arguments may be effected by (1) counter-conclusions, (2) objections. The latter are obtained: (1) from the thing itself (the opponent’s enthymeme); (2) from an opposite; or (3) similar thing; (4) from previous decisions of well-known persons.

https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL193/1926/pb_LCL193.xliii.xml

 

[vii]

“(Rule) If O then R (Report) O Therefore R The rule here consists in a conditional statement that links the intentional object (O) to the rating (R). The report is accordingly the intentional object (O) itself; and the conclusion consists in the rating (R) detached from the object (O)”.

 

Elliot D. Cohen “The Metaphysics of Logic Based Therapy” https://npcassoc.org/docs/ijpp/metaphysics_of_LBT10V3N1.pdf

Felix Updates

Books Update

I am using a new plugin which will migrate all of my book material to the sidebar, where you can click on the book. This should be a more user friendly experience as this format looks like a book, has page numbers on it, as well as what will be a clickable Table of Contents.

I have so far put in this format some of the material in my book The Mask of Maya. I also will start to add material from The Yoga Party: Philosophical Writings 4th edition as I edit it and further develop it for the new edition. I am not sure if I will be able to put my Master’s Thesis here, but if it seems possible I will. For now it will continue to be linked from here to Google Play where it presently resides.

I hope you enjoy these new improvements and I think you will find the book format refreshing compared to how it was before!

Felix metaphysics, philosophy of religion

What are the paths of Yoga?

Yoga mean “to yoke,” especially with God. There are many paths to yoga, and the path one chooses depends on one’s personal inclinations and attitudes. The way one approaches God is very different among different people. When being yoked to God, it is not that God has changed when one apprehends God, but rather ones way of understanding God is different.

What is Yoga?

When one thinks of yoga oftentimes one thinks of people on floor mats stretching every which way. This yoga is called Hatha Yoga. But in traditional Indian thought Hatha Yoga is simply used as preparation for the other yogas. Hatha Yoga is the most popular practice in the West and other yogic practices are little known. But there is much more to Yoga than simply Hatha Yoga. Yoga originated in India and literally means to yoke. One yokes their souls to God. But there are many different paths to God.

Yoga’s Four Paths

One may think that all one has to do is choose a path to God, but usually the path chooses the devotee. For example there are those who God is most naturally known through the heart (e.g., Bhakti Yoga). There are others whose abilities accent the use of thought to know God (e.g., Jnana Yoga). There are those interested in mystical experiences doing psychophysical exercises (i.e., mediation) to achieve God Consciousness (e.g., Raja Yoga). Finally one may be more inclined to dedicate the fruits of ones labor to God, and rather practice work without selfishness, out of devotion to God (e.g., Karma Yoga). In fact all of these practices aim at God consciousness.

Hindu Ways To Find God

There is no right way to achieve union with God. It simply depends on one’s spiritual inclinations. Also no way is superior to the other. It is rather like deciding to travel to a foreign country and being undecided whether one is going to fly, drive, go by submarine, or walk. The destination is the same, but the way one gets there is different.

People most often think of yoga as being strictly a Hindu practice, but in fact yoga refers to the way people approach God. For example a religion that would be considered by Hindus to be a Bhakti Yoga would be Christianity or Islam. This is because in these religions one worships God. Jnana Yoga on the other hand could be the philosophical musings of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Indian Ways of Knowing God

According to the Indian school of thought, one is not limited to simply one path to God. If one is so inclined they can strive to be united with God by choosing all of the paths listed. This would take an exceptional person, but it can be done, and one could live the life of an enlightenedsiddhi.

One interesting distinction that is made in Indian thought is that it is ultimately monistic; that is everything is One. This then would be considered an impersonal relationship with God. One cannot cultivate a relationship with something that is fundamentally oneself. It is said in Indian thought That Thou Art On the other hand Bhakti Yogists worship God. One can only worship something that is beyond you. This then would be a personal relationship with God. This defines the difference between a personal and impersonal relationship with God.

Understanding the Different Yogas

Described previously is the difference between having a personal relationship with God (Bhakti Yoga) and having an impersonal one (Jnana Yoga). How can God be both? How can God be both out there and then also constituting ones very marrow? Ultimately according to Indian thought the most complete understanding of God is monistic (e.g., everything is one), but having a relationship with God is possible as well (e.g., dualistic). It is not that God is different to each individual, but rather the way one comes to know God is different.

Indian religion is often thought to be polytheistic, but what many don’t recognize is that the many Gods in Indian thought are simply different manifestations of the one and eternal God. Similarly, one can come to know a manifested God in a personal way or an impersonal way. In the same way someone understands God as being personal or impersonal, God is understood by the individual depending on ones’ nature which determines how they relate to God, not residing in God itself as it manifests in ones lives. Just as God is infinite the ways of knowing God are infinite as well.

Sources:

Honderich, Ted Ed. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Smith, Huston. The Worlds Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions. Harper Collins Publishers: New York, 1991.

Vivekananda, Swami. Hinduism. Sri Ramakrishna Math Printing Press: India, (n.d.),

Felix epistemology

What is Epistemology?

Epistemology is synonymous with theories of knowledge. For a claim to be true the claim must have a foundation. Yet finding a firm foundation can be difficult. Epistemology is subdivided into rationalism andempiricism which are considered ways of acquiring knowledge. Yet these two concepts have limitations. Truth is essential for one to have knowledge; how can one know something if what they think is true is in fact false?

Problems with Foundationalism and Anti-Foundationalism

Epistemology must be grounded on a firm foundation for otherwise how can ones claims to knowledge be supported? Arguments without foundations rely on circular reasoning or an infinite regress. When an claim is based on circular reasoning, the argument itself is supported based on a previous claim, but at the same time the claim provides support for itself farther around the circular chain.

Infinite regress is different. How can something provide support for something else if the claim that provides support is not founded by itself or something prior? If all claims must be supported, then each prior claim needs support as well. If the argument is not well founded then it relies on the previous claim, and so on, and so on, therefore one ends up in a infinite regress. There is no foundation.

Anti-Foundationalism argues to the contrary; some people claim truth is relative. To some it is not important if values differ. This can thrust one into a moral quandary. For example it is considered for certain areas in Asia and Africa that female genital mutilation is acceptable morally, but people in the West would reject this.

Problems With Rationalism and Empiricism

According to epistemology there are two ways to acquire knowledge. First is rationalism in which one possess’ rational principles independent of experience. These rational principles exist in the mind, which is immortal and immutable. That is because something which does not exist in space and time cannot be destroyed. Therefore rational principles exist independently of ones physical bodies, since ones body is spatial and temporal and therefore subject to destruction.

Descartes talks about the relationship, or lack thereof, between mind and body, how the two can interface if they are so dissimilar, and he is unable to give a satisfactory explanation of how a mind and body can interact.

There are problems with empiricism too. One is called the Veil of Perception, introduced by John Locke’s representationalism. How does one perceive anything? Does one see the thing in itself? To think this would be called naive realism. If one does see things as they are, then how does one see them? Does the matter itself fall into one’s eyes? One may counter that what one sees is reflected light. Believing what one sees is a representation of what is being viewed, is called representation realism. And if what one sees is not exactly as it exists in itself, how can one say that this thing even resembles what one sees, or even exists at all? If the lights are turned out might the object cease to exist? In other words if one does not perceive the thing in itself, how can one know they perceive the thing at all?

The Types of Truth

What is truth? In order to have knowledge one must know that certain opinions are true. While truth is essential to having knowledge, one must realize that there are different standards for truth. The types of truths include the following:

  • Correspondence Theory of Truth
  • Pragmatic Theory of Truth
  • Coherence Theory of Truth

First is the correspondence theory of truth. That means there is a correspondence between what one thinks and the world. For example to say the sky is blue would be true because the sky is in fact blue, (well the sky usually appear blue to human eyes).

Another theory of truth is the pragmatic theory of truth. This is the idea if it works then it is true. For example if one were to ask if the computer works properly, and one turns it on and all goes well, then this statement would in fact be true. It is true that it works properly.

Finally, there is the coherence theory of truth. That is what people find coherent is, in fact, true. When figuring out mathematical equations, if the derivations are coherent (hold together) then the final formula is in fact true.

Epistemology is a huge subject and this just scratches the surface. Epistemology includes issues surrounding foundationalism and anti-foundationalism, and it’s subdivisions are rationalism and empiricism. For something to be known as knowledge, it must in fact be true. There are three basic theories for truth, correspondence, pragmatic, and the coherence theories of truth. Searching for truth is a worthy pursuit.

Source:

Honderich, Ted. Ed., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Felix rhetoric

What is the Rhetorical Syllogism?

The enthymeme is also known as the rhetorical syllogism. In explaining this device Aristotle references his Rhetoric, Prior Analytics, and Topics as well as other of his books. While Aristotle did not favor using persuasion in an unethical fashion, it became necessary to explain the enthymeme in order to refute other less ethical enthymemes that were used by some sophists of the time. To understand the enthymeme or rhetorical syllogism one must first understand a syllogism.

The Syllogism – Validity and Soundness

A normal syllogism has 2 premises and a conclusion. For example one could say the following:

All Men are Mortal (premise)

Socrates is a Man (premise)

Therefore Socrates is a Mortal (conclusion)

This is a valid and sound syllogism. Validity refers to when the conclusion follows from the premises, and a sound argument is a valid argument plus the premises are true. In the enthymeme one line or more in the syllogism is implied, and therefore not explicitly stated. For example in the following truncated syllogism, the premise “Socrates is a Man” is implied, and still the premises and the conclusion are clear.

All Men are Mortal (premise)

Therefore Socrates is Mortal (conclusion)

But the enthymeme is not simply based on syllogistic logic, although syllogistic logic is a very important part of it. The enthymeme also tugs at the emotions. Lastly it appeals to ones sense of what is right or wrong (e.g., ethics) How is a syllogism able to accomplish this?

The Persuasive Nature of the Enthymeme

The enthymeme is a popular technique of demogogues. People are persuaded to accept as true false beliefs against their will. While such a thing may not seem possible, when one examines the enthymeme one can see why this is so. Central to the enthymeme is understandinglogos, pathos, and ethos (e.g., logic, emotion and ethics).

First of all the logical aspect is clear. The syllogism is a tried and true method in logic, and is used in most of Aristotle’s logical systems. But this is not only what makes the enthymeme so treacherous.

One’s emotions are engaged. This is so first of all because with the enthymeme that is used, the auditor (e.g., the listener) agrees with the premises, agrees with the logical structure, and therefore is compelled to believe that the enthymeme, or truncated syllogism, is in fact valid and sound. Most importantly the auditor themselves supply the missing premise or conclusion. This makes their belief integral in the enthymeme. This fact of agreement with the enthymeme elicits an emotional response, a satisfaction that one’s beliefs are validated by logic. Also the enthymeme can also elicit an emotional response when being compelled to accept false premises based on flawed information which may be favorable to the auditor.

Finally this affirmation, this confirmation of the auditor to this unsound truncated syllogism convinces the auditor to agree with the rhetor (e.g., the rhetorician) about issues that concern society. The auditor is convinced that this truncated syllogism appeals to them directly and is enshrined in logic, and the auditor can then go so far as to believe that the false agreement with this syllogism goes on to validate oneself and their standing in the community (e.g., ethos).

An Example of an Enthymeme

Take the following example:

Former President George H. W Bush offered the following enthymeme when opposing the Civil Rights Bill of 1991. He explicitly states the observation only.

Observation: The bill will promote the use of quotas in the workplace.

Generalization: Quotas give unearned opportunities to minorities.

Inference: White’s opportunities will unfairly be given to minorities if the bill passes.

His audience was his fellow Republicans composed disproportionately of whites compared to the Democratic Party. Yet this enthymeme could have a very different meaning if given to an audience composed of minorities.

For example:

Observation: The bill will promote the use of quotas in the workplace.

Generalization: Quotas insure that earned opportunities will be given to minorities.

Inference: Minorities will be treated fairly in the hiring process.

Is the Enthymeme Ethical?

Enthymemes are persuasive independent of the facts of the matter. But it is only ethical when the truncated premise or conclusion is used with the full knowledge of the auditor, that is where the meaning of the missing premise or conclusion is clearly understood. The facts in the world, determine if the enthymeme not only appears to be ethical, but in fact is ethical.

A side note in dealing with enthymemes in general; by identifying the erroneous implied premises one can in fact refute unethical enthymemes by constructing your own. So have at it!

Sources:

Aden, Roger C. The Enthymeme as Postmodern Argument Form: Condensed, Mediated Argument Then and Now. Argumentation and Advocacy 31, no. 2 (Fall 1994): 59.

Barnes, Jonathan Ed. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Bollingen Series LXXI, Princeton University Press 1995

Frame, Doug., The Logical Nature of Aristotle’s Enthymeme. Masters Thesis 1998