- View Source"The supreme problem of culture is that of gaining possession of
one's transcendental self, of being at one and the same time the
self of oneself [self to the second degree, or beyond the
material/body temple]. Thus it should not surprise us that there is
an absence of feeling or complete understanding of others. Lacking
a perfect comprehension of ourselves, we can never really hope to
know others." Novalis. Christ Jesus read/knew minds/others, from
the perspective of reflecting Mind, Plotinean Oneness.
"Why do you play at hazard in matters of the utmost moment? If you
find the principles of philosophy entertaining sit down and turn
them over in your mind all by yourself, but don't ever call yourself
a philosopher." Epictetus, "Discourses" (3.21.17), on the occasion
of dealing with the surround Nietzsche aphorized as "There are no
philosophies, only philosophers."
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Jim Stuart"
> I feel the use of the original sentence gives a misleadingimpression of my position with regard to psychological laws. The
sentence implies I may allow for the possibility of psychological
laws applicable to human beings. In fact I hold to the view that it
is not possible for there to be psychological laws which apply to
human beings. The reason is that the concepts we use to characterise
our mental states and actions are not the sort of concepts which are
suitable for inclusion in natural laws.
>there were psychological laws which were applicable to non-human
> When I wrote the original sentence, I was thinking that perhaps
animals, e.g. laws which described and predicted the behaviour of
e.g. rats in mazes and cages. I think these sorts of laws are also
highly dubious, but there may be laws of this sort.
>are of such a nature that natural laws cannot be applied to us as
> To summarise: I think that the minds and behaviour of human beings
individuals. This is not to deny that the physical, chemical and
biological micro-events inside our bodies do obey natural laws.