Marioxs34

I need also another help: does Leo talk about an inexistence of a objective nethod to reach truth such as science except for objective measurements (still science)?

Well, i don't want to dive so much i just want to get a taste of Leo's content so that i can judge if i want to continue or not. 100 hours is too much, honestly, and i think it's a good thing only if you want to start a serious self-development journey. I think i'll pick up whatever resonates with me

I just want to see if i wanna go further in his teachings, just to introduce myself, as i've said.

Guys, can anyone help me?

Hi guys, i've started to introduce myself to Leo's thought (not just to improve myself) and i've seen 6 videos ( the ultimate structure of reality explained; state of consciousness is everything; what Is consciousness, all questions answered; how openmindedness works and correcting the stigma of psychedelics part 1 and 2). Is it enough for having a pretty general and introductory vision?

Descartes clearly used reason to claim that he was existing, he didn't experience it. And he also used logic to prove the evidence for mathematical and logical truths like the non-contradiction principle trough a sophisticated system of thought. Now this is going too far, i will not continue posting

Nope, i am talking about knowledge, not belief. Belief is when something seems real and you believe that that thing is real, before analysing it logically or you have poor reasons. But when something is absolutely undeniable, that's knowledge

Descartes talked about the fact that he was doubting about everything but he could not deny logically that he was doubting and by doubting he was something that was thinking. So, something to be considered real must be logically self-evident not seeming real. This is the first rule of his philosophical method

When i mean that something is real, i mean that it makes logical sense that something is real not that something seems real. Now, we can not question the validity of reason since Leo too says that reason isn't bad. And now that i think about it, talking about the validity of reason, many philophers talk about the power of reason and indipendence from faith and meta-perspectives. I have listened this from my competent teacher of philosophy (i'm from Italy and here philosophy is taught in schools)

Of course there's a difference. If it's real there's a forum, if it's an illusion the forum doesn't exist

So you're saying that reason is a medium to recognise whether the experience is an illusion? What does ultimately tell us that what we've experienced is not an illusion?

Then where does the epystemological validity come from pure experience if reason can't justify experience? I don't think blind faith in experience is a good thing

Then why Leo tells experience has to have privilege and reason can't question some its propositions?

Interpreting reality is not the same as lying about it. It is necessary because your experience of reality can totally be an illusion

But i think i will not continue to debating with you, this environment is not suitable for a civilised and fair exchange of ideas and i fear the reaction of its creator