The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
My problem with such metaphors is that instead of being compelling for some insight, they are compelling for being antropomorphic, that is, referring to stuff we have 'innate sense of' and don't immediately think of something whose meaning could be philosophically (or metaphysically) complicated itself. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
In the classical Indian scheme, there are 6 complementary views... none of which paints the whole picture... these views are called:
Nyaya: Sets forth the rules and limits of thought/logic/language Vaisheshika: Analysis (an ancient atomic theory is part of this approach) Samkhya: An atheistic, dualistic approach which posits an essential difference between matter and mind Yoga: Gnosis Mimamsa: A theistic approach Vedanta: Posits an essential non-duality
These are considered complementary approaches.
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 14 48 comments
by Oui - Jan 20 49 comments
by gmoke - Jan 22
by Oui - Jan 10 60 comments
by Oui - Jan 21 10 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jan 15 20 comments
by Oui - Jan 20 5 comments
by Oui - Jan 16 9 comments
by Oui - Jan 23
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 2049 comments
by Oui - Jan 205 comments
by Oui - Jan 172 comments
by Oui - Jan 169 comments
by gmoke - Jan 16
by IdiotSavant - Jan 1520 comments
by Oui - Jan 1434 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1448 comments
by Oui - Jan 1389 comments
by Oui - Jan 1177 comments
by Oui - Jan 1060 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 877 comments
by Oui - Jan 772 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 710 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 668 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 611 comments
by Oui - Jan 659 comments