What Philosophy Should Be

[marjoramblues]

@IC:
Does 'Immanuel Can' mean 'Jesus Can' ?

[Immanuel Can]

There has never been an "ultimate aim" for humankind,

This is interesting. Can you present your evidence for that conclusion? Or is it pure supposition?

[Immanuel Can]

Thank you for this clarification. Your phrase 'in the face of Truth', together with your 'Immanuel Can' (meaning 'Jesus Can?), had me interpreting this as philosophy being subservient to some religious 'Truth', perhaps of 'Jesus'.

There is a ton of false information and unjust assumptions, you will find, going around these days about Theists of all kinds, and Christians in particular. But that is not entirely unexpected. I only suggest that getting to know more of them and different types is often helpful in dispelling the prejudicial generalities that are so common today.

What would I say to your dichotomy? Well, as Francis Bacon, inventor of the scientific method wrote in his famous essay, "Of Truth":

"'What is truth?' said jesting Pilate, and stayed not for an answer."

Bacon found it tenable both to believe in scientific truth and to see that truth as embodied in the particular person of Jesus Christ. I share his belief that the dichotomy you propose above is a mistaken one. Truth has a name. But it does not require an irrational mind to understand that, nor does a rational, truth-seeking one need to reject it; one can love both expressions of truth without difficulty, I find.

[The Voice of Time]

There has never been an "ultimate aim" for humankind,

This is interesting. Can you present your evidence for that conclusion? Or is it pure supposition?

I can't disprove things that doesn't exist, because the fact they don't exist makes it impossible to prove them anything.

If however you come with candidates I might ask the question that given somebody else falls outside of the norm... would they stop being part of humankind? Or, if somebody didn't fall into the category, wouldn't that disprove that the one in question is not the ultimate aim of humankind?

My claim would be that all "aims" are subject to exceptions and therefore they are not "ultimate". Even "time" could be this way, as you only need to prove that one thing doesn't change for the ultimacy to be wrong (one such thing might be that time itself didn't change but is constant and is somewhat outside of itself... but that's not a question I take seriously, only a quick example). However, many things come near to an ultimate aim because they are widespread, but they "are" not ultimate aims. Truth is certainly not close to an ultimate aim, the exceptions pile up like mountains.

[marjoramblues]

Thank you for this clarification. Your phrase 'in the face of Truth', together with your 'Immanuel Can' (meaning 'Jesus Can?), had me interpreting this as philosophy being subservient to some religious 'Truth', perhaps of 'Jesus'.

There is a ton of false information and unjust assumptions, you will find, going around these days about Theists of all kinds, and Christians in particular. But that is not entirely unexpected. I only suggest that getting to know more of them and different types is often helpful in dispelling the prejudicial generalities that are so common today.

M: Oh yes, that I can believe; false assumptions going around doing their best to promote common generalizations and particular prejudices...
That is why it is useful to ask for clarification. Is your suggestion of getting to know more...what?...Christians directed at me?

What would I say to your dichotomy? Well, as Francis Bacon, inventor of the scientific method wrote in his famous essay, "Of Truth":

"'What is truth?' said jesting Pilate, and stayed not for an answer."

Bacon found it tenable both to believe in scientific truth and to see that truth as embodied in the particular person of Jesus Christ. I share his belief that the dichotomy you propose above is a mistaken one. Truth has a name. But it does not require an irrational mind to understand that, nor does a rational, truth-seeking one need to reject it; one can love both expressions of truth without difficulty, I find.

M: I hadn't realised that I had proposed a dichotomy, mistaken or otherwise. I was asking you to clarify not an either/or scenario but an apparent belief that the 'Truth of Christianity' is superior to philosophy. And that philosophy should know its place.

Does 'Immanuel Can' mean 'Jesus Can' ?

[Immanuel Can]

I can't disprove things that doesn't exist, because the fact they don't exist makes it impossible to prove them anything.

This seems circular reasoning, to me. You say it doesn't exist because you have no evidence, and then because you have no evidence it doesn't exist.

I would anticipate that a categorical claim such as you make, that is

There has never been an "ultimate aim" for humankind,

requires categorical evidence. "Never" is a strong word, and "ultimate aim" involves every living person. These are grand statements indeed; one would not ordinarily make them without reason, no?

Yet the fact that you, personally, know of no such meaning only amounts to a statement of your personal uncertainty, unless your claim is backed by evidence. You would have to admit (since as you say, you have, and can be expected to have, no evidence) that someone else could conceivably have a different experience from you, and thus could have the evidence you lack: you would have no rational reason to say such a thing could not be. So how did you get so categorical?

I have not personally seen an atom. That does not mean they do not exist, or that I am rational to be (more than tentatively) skeptical about their existence. It also does not mean that evidence does not exist or cannot be produced for such a thing.

On the other hand, if all you're saying is that you yourself have no evidence, I'm fine with believing that.

[Immanuel Can]

Does 'Immanuel Can' mean 'Jesus Can' ?

Was it on another forum that we cleared that up? I'm losing track of all the different conversations, I fear.

Yes.

[The Voice of Time]

This seems circular reasoning, to me. You say it doesn't exist because you have no evidence, and then because you have no evidence it doesn't exist.

Nothingness is circular by its very nature. So doesn't matter if it sounds circular, because that's the nature of nothingness, it is when things come into relation with others thing that it exists and we can talk about it as anything real at all.

[marjoramblues]

Does 'Immanuel Can' mean 'Jesus Can' ?

Was it on another forum that we cleared that up? I'm losing track of all the different conversations, I fear.

Yes.

Thanks for that. I also wrote a response to you within the quote...just incase you missed it.

From your Introduction:

Male, fifties; by training, a philosopher and theologian both.
Socrates said he knew nothing. I am sure, therefore, that my own wisdom is strictly limited. I cannot account for most of what goes on in the universe...

But Immanuel can.

So, Jesus can, or does, know better/best?

[The Voice of Time]

I would anticipate that a categorical claim such as you make, that is

There has never been an "ultimate aim" for humankind,

requires categorical evidence. "Never" is a strong word, and "ultimate aim" involves every living person.

No, "humankind" involves every living person. Ultimate aim can apply to any quantity.

These are grand statements indeed; one would not ordinarily make them without reason, no?

Yes one would. I don't need proof to say that elves, dwarfs and gnomes doesn't exist. With things that aren't show signs of being real, you have no reason to suppose they are real to begin with. That would be an error of rationality, the rational after all is about attaining the "best", and when time and space is limited you don't waste it on fairytales.

Yet the fact that you, personally, know of no such meaning

Meaning? What does meaning have to do with any of it? Ultimate aim has nothing to do with "meaning" by itself, ultimate aim would be the end goal of things that is foremost before any other goal and to which the one or many in question would point their actions towards. Either it exists or not, meaning has little to do with it. Frankly, what a person thinks or says about ultimate aim is largely irrelevant, as any deviation would instantly disprove them.

only amounts to a statement of your personal uncertainty

I don't feel much uncertain.

, unless your claim is backed by evidence.

Things are not said to be evident by not being, but by being. So "evidence" is impossible anywhere except imagination.

You would have to admit (since as you say, you have, and can be expected to have, no evidence) that someone else could conceivably have a different experience from you

And until they can prove it I'd still have to say they are experiencing their own imagination and nothing more.

, and thus could have the evidence you lack: you would have no rational reason to say such a thing could not be.

All rational reason, I have all rational reason to say no such thing could be, or perhaps you've forgotten the meaning of rationality?

So how did you get so categorical?

Lucky self-development, sort out misguiding information, focus on good information.

I have not personally seen an atom. That does not mean they do not exist

Well strictly speaking you have seen an atom, you've just seen it together with lots of other atoms, so you wouldn't be able to single it out.

, or that I am rational to be (more than tentatively) skeptical about their existence.

It's quite rational to be sceptical about their existence, but existence is not the primary concern of people who work with atoms, but how far they are capable of providing a knowledge base to work with matter of the scale we work with in our daily lives. So the properties of atoms enable us to determine molecules and molecules enable us to predict the workings of things we see and feel with our own eyes and ears and touch. In this way, the question of whether molecules "exist" or not is subservient to whether the way in which we understand the build-up of matter is capable of giving us predictive power, an understanding of the causality of the world. Pure questions of existence belongs to Plato's time in the antiquity and not our time, in our time the question is complicated.

It also does not mean that evidence does not exist or cannot be produced for such a thing.

No, but I still don't see why I should assume it does exist anymore than I should assume elves to exist.

On the other hand, if all you're saying is that you yourself have no evidence, I'm fine with believing that.

I'm saying I have no reason to believe there is any evidence at all or that there would come any evidence. I've went long and far exploring the idea of a destiny of the universe and its ultimate aims, and I believe the universe has an ultimate aim because I believe it's in-grained in the very nature of (statistical) causality, and I have evidence for this which exists all around us (it's a lengthy discussion which would need a thread of its own, wonder if I haven't already created such a thread somewhere), however, an ultimate aim centred on humankind is deeply suspicious and the chaotic existence of humankind makes it hugely improbable, I would call it an anthropocentric error: the presumption that there is something special about humankind that gives it special purpose in the universe, kinda like all the way back to the Church presuming we are the centre of the universe because they can't imagine themselves not at the centre of attention.

[marjoramblues]

M: Does 'Immanuel Can' mean 'Jesus Can' ?
IC: Was it on another forum that we cleared that up? I'm losing track of all the different conversations, I fear.
Yes.

M: Fortunately, there is a 'search' function; all posts/threads can easily be revisited.
For example: [my emphases]
IC:

Ask what you will. I have not all the answers, but Immanuel does.: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11115&hilit=Immanuel+can

IC:

All cultures, governing bodies,...are capable of being doubted, and none can provide a defense against skepticism. And that which does not exist independent and above the throes of the human drama has the sort of enduring authority that can guarantee we are right to ascribe any equality of value or rights to all persons.

But Immanuel can.
from: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=10305&p=147626&hili ... an#p147626

where you also indirecty answered 'But of course' to hq's:

"But Immanuel can." As in...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel
...yes?

About your 'Jesus can', and mirroring your question to Voice:
This is interesting. Can you present your evidence for that conclusion? Or is it pure supposition?

And can you understand why I suspect you of a certain degree of slipperiness, intentional or otherwise in your 'clarification' re the 'should' of philoophy.

That is to say your first suggestion that philosophy needs to have 'humility in the face of Truth'?
is not the same as: 'we must take a fallibilist attitude to what we claim to "know." '

[Immanuel Can]

M: Fortunately, there is a 'search' function; all posts/threads can easily be revisited.

Indeed. One of them was, in fact, earlier in this very forum. That's why I was surprised you remained in doubt. I thought I had been frank, and it turns out I had.

This is interesting. Can you present your evidence for that conclusion? Or is it pure supposition?

Sure I can. But I'm not sure which of the questions for which I gave that answer you are asking me. Feel free to pick one.

That is to say your first suggestion that philosophy needs to have 'humility in the face of Truth'?
is not the same as: 'we must take a fallibilist attitude to what we claim to "know." '

]I think they are part of the attitude of humility. Part of the thing is to realize our own knowledge is probabilistic at best, and hence sometimes errant. I think we always need to be open to new information, and to regard the general stock of what we know as in need of periodic correction. Yet I admit that this is a far cry from total relativism, to be sure.

[The Voice of Time]

@ Voice:
I'm not going over old ground with you; it's history. Can't remember what thread...
Enough to say that it is a matter of choice how people follow philosophy and what wisdom they can glean from the past.

Hmm, I thought about it, and noticed you said "history" and not "history of philosophy". I remember having discussed with some person that I didn't like obsession with history, but I don't remember it being about the history of philosophy... besides my present argument I expect to be quite more advanced than what I would've produced back then. It's sad you won't answer it, I thought it quite impressive myself. I'm giving myself a pat on the back and a good wank before I go to bed as a reward for my heroic efforts on the cause of the present! x)

The orgasm is gonna be explosive, with a firm salutation and the glory of victory!

[marjoramblues]

M: Fortunately, there is a 'search' function; all posts/threads can easily be revisited.

Indeed. One of them was, in fact, earlier in this very forum. That's why I was surprised you remained in doubt. I thought I had been frank, and it turns out I had.

This is interesting. Can you present your evidence for that conclusion? Or is it pure supposition?

Sure I can. But I'm not sure which of the questions for which I gave that answer you are asking me. Feel free to pick one.

That is to say your first suggestion that philosophy needs to have 'humility in the face of Truth'?
is not the same as: 'we must take a fallibilist attitude to what we claim to "know." '

]I think they are part of the attitude of humility. Part of the thing is to realize our own knowledge is probabilistic at best, and hence sometimes errant. I think we always need to be open to new information, and to regard the general stock of what we know as in need of periodic correction. Yet I admit that this is a far cry from total relativism, to be sure.

1. You were not what I would consider 'frank', rather avoiding a direct answer to some direct questioning by Voice in your Introduction; eventually producing an indirect one to hq. You are being less than honest, here. That is why I persisted.

2. Again, my mirroring of your question relates to your continuing intimation that 'Jesus can'.
Again, avoidance appears to be your strategy here.

3. Again, the slipperiness continues.
Your 'clarification' of the original statement is unsatisfactory regarding your use of 'in the face of Truth'.

I think I've had enough of this for now.

[marjoramblues]

@ Voice:
I'm not going over old ground with you; it's history. Can't remember what thread...
Enough to say that it is a matter of choice how people follow philosophy and what wisdom they can glean from the past.

Hmm, I thought about it, and noticed you said "history" and not "history of philosophy". I remember having discussed with some person that I didn't like obsession with history, but I don't remember it being about the history of philosophy... besides my present argument I expect to be quite more advanced than what I would've produced back then. It's sad you won't answer it, I thought it quite impressive myself. I'm giving myself a pat on the back and a good wank before I go to bed as a reward for my heroic efforts on the cause of the present! x)

The orgasm is gonna be explosive, with a firm salutation and the glory of victory!

Impressive.