Russell: The No Man's Land and Philosophy

[Veritas Aequitas]

To put Philosophy into perspectively it would be appropriate to draw upon Russell's 'No Man's Land".

• Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.
  Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable;
  but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.
  
  All definite knowledge--so I should contend-belongs to science;
  all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.
  But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy.
  -Bertrand Russell - The History of Western Philosophy. (1945), Introductory, p. xiii.

The difference between Science and Theology;

• Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance.
  
  Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe.
  
  Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them.
  To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.
  Bertrand Russell - The History of Western Philosophy.
  

The last para aligns with Russell's point in his 'Problem of Philosophy';

• Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves

From the above what we can summarized the following;

• Science: all definite knowledge, known and possible to be knowable
  
  Philosophy: no definite knowledge of the unknown within the No Man's land
  
  Theology: dogma of definite knowledge of the unknowable out of ignorance.

Philosophy resides between Science and Theology.
The point is Philosophy-proper hinges [tethers] itself solidly to Science [empirical] and from the secured grounds of Science, explores the fringes outward to the No-Man's Land.

Theology on the other hand ignores the reality of Science [empiricism] and jumped to the conclusion from the other extreme of the No Man's Land that there is definite knowledge of God as real.
When theology divorces itself from Science, it is dealing with the unknowable.
Whatever is not grounded on Science [the minimal] cannot be known as real i.e. unknowable. It goes beyond the real of knowledge [JTB], thus whatever the conclusion inferred by theologians from the other extreme end of the Non-Man's Land is impossible to be real.

Thus is it critical for theists to understand which side they are standing on the No Man's Land, i.e. they are standing on la la land of woo woo.

This is one argument to support my thesis,
It is impossible for God to be real.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

I am not proving a negative, like, god does not exist.
Rather what I have shown is the theists' premise is a non-starter and moot,
i.e. theists began with the premise there are definite answers and knowledge, i.e. God exists as real [who listen and answer prayers, and does other real things].
But rightly, as Russell propounded 'no definite answers can be true' thus the theist dogma is false, a lost cause and God is an impossibility to be real & true.

Views - whatever views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is an element of existential psychology to be considered within Russell' statement above.

• Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales.
  Russell

Yes, painful means existential sufferings.
This is resolved within many of strategies from Eastern Philosophies, e.g. Buddhism.

What so many are ignorant of is the fundamental essence of theism eventually is reduced to psychology, i.e. the existential crisis.

It is the same for those non-theists who insists there are real things existing independent of the human conditions.

[Eodnhoj7]

To put Philosophy into perspectively it would be appropriate to draw upon Russell's 'No Man's Land".

• Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.
  Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable;
  but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.
  
  All definite knowledge--so I should contend-belongs to science;
  all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.
  But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy.
  -Bertrand Russell - The History of Western Philosophy. (1945), Introductory, p. xiii.

The difference between Science and Theology;

• Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance.
  
  Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe.
  
  Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them.
  To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.
  Bertrand Russell - The History of Western Philosophy.
  

The last para aligns with Russell's point in his 'Problem of Philosophy';

• Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves

From the above what we can summarized the following;

• Science: all definite knowledge, known and possible to be knowable
  
  Philosophy: no definite knowledge of the unknown within the No Man's land
  
  Theology: dogma of definite knowledge of the unknowable out of ignorance.

Philosophy resides between Science and Theology.
The point is Philosophy-proper hinges [tethers] itself solidly to Science [empirical] and from the secured grounds of Science, explores the fringes outward to the No-Man's Land.

Theology on the other hand ignores the reality of Science [empiricism] and jumped to the conclusion from the other extreme of the No Man's Land that there is definite knowledge of God as real.
When theology divorces itself from Science, it is dealing with the unknowable.
Whatever is not grounded on Science [the minimal] cannot be known as real i.e. unknowable. It goes beyond the real of knowledge [JTB], thus whatever the conclusion inferred by theologians from the other extreme end of the Non-Man's Land is impossible to be real.

Thus is it critical for theists to understand which side they are standing on the No Man's Land, i.e. they are standing on la la land of woo woo.

This is one argument to support my thesis,
It is impossible for God to be real.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

I am not proving a negative, like, god does not exist.
Rather what I have shown is the theists' premise is a non-starter and moot,
i.e. theists began with the premise there are definite answers and knowledge, i.e. God exists as real [who listen and answer prayers, and does other real things].
But rightly, as Russell propounded 'no definite answers can be true' thus the theist dogma is false, a lost cause and God is an impossibility to be real & true.

Views - whatever views?

Science is speculation as well considering many experiments do not line up. I was just reading an article the other day where multiple experiments show that the universe is expanding at different rates....thus experimentation is relative.

Differences in the speed of light are also observed.

It is also speculation as well considering...well...experiments are the physicalizing of abstracts which are speculations. If one is to sit back and look at the history of science, the constant progress in experiments means all facts will eventually be proven wrong given a long enough time line.

Facts are temporal entities, ghosts, that we see for a period of time and then they "vanish".

You fail to take into account that in quoting Bertrand Russell, his principia mathematic was proven false and contradiction...so what authority does he have in defining what philosophy is, when his job is to define (math) and he cannot even do that? Russel, with his worship of progressive linear reason, tends to step outside of his boundaries.


The no mans land is the nature of assumption itself, as it is just empty...this nature stems through all of philosophy, theology and science without being addressed precisely because it points out that not only does the "emperor have no clothes" but a gravity fallacy occurs.

We believe these things because of a mass of intertwined definitions, failing to take into account all of these definitions are cracking the core foundational bricks they are held upon in one respect, in another respect this "mass" of information allows for equivocation.

With increase complexity comes an absence of form and knowledge negates itself.

We choose based off the mass of information, because the mass as formless reflects whatever we desire to see in it based upon our identities (repeated assumptions).


Assuming assumptions is knowledge as knowledge is the reception and projection of patterns, thus even knowledge itself is assumed.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is an element of existential psychology to be considered within Russell' statement above.

• Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales.
  Russell

Yes, painful means existential sufferings.
This is resolved within many of strategies from Eastern Philosophies, e.g. Buddhism.

What so many are ignorant of is the fundamental essence of theism eventually is reduced to psychology, i.e. the existential crisis.

It is the same for those non-theists who insists there are real things existing independent of the human conditions.

Word salad...it isn't even wrong....

[Veritas Aequitas]

Science is speculation as well considering many experiments do not line up. I was just reading an article the other day where multiple experiments show that the universe is expanding at different rates....thus experimentation is relative.

Differences in the speed of light are also observed.

It is also speculation as well considering...well...experiments are the physicalizing of abstracts which are speculations. If one is to sit back and look at the history of science, the constant progress in experiments means all facts will eventually be proven wrong given a long enough time line.

Facts are temporal entities, ghosts, that we see for a period of time and then they "vanish".

You fail to take into account that in quoting Bertrand Russell, his principia mathematic was proven false and contradiction...so what authority does he have in defining what philosophy is, when his job is to define (math) and he cannot even do that? Russel, with his worship of progressive linear reason, tends to step outside of his boundaries.


The no mans land is the nature of assumption itself, as it is just empty...this nature stems through all of philosophy, theology and science without being addressed precisely because it points out that not only does the "emperor have no clothes" but a gravity fallacy occurs.

We believe these things because of a mass of intertwined definitions, failing to take into account all of these definitions are cracking the core foundational bricks they are held upon in one respect, in another respect this "mass" of information allows for equivocation.

With increase complexity comes an absence of form and knowledge negates itself.

We choose based off the mass of information, because the mass as formless reflects whatever we desire to see in it based upon our identities (repeated assumptions).

Assuming assumptions is knowledge as knowledge is the reception and projection of patterns, thus even knowledge itself is assumed.

Yes, Science makes assumptions and one very extreme assumption, i.e.
"the thing-in-itself exists as real."
According to Popper, scientific knowledge and theories are at best polished conjectures.
So Science is very limited as stated by Russell above - you missed that??

The fact is despite the above limitations, scientific knowledge is the most objective knowledge subject to its declared assumptions, limitations, principles and scientific method.
On the above foundation, scientific knowledge is optimal knowledge not absolute knowledge.
What makes science the most objective within humanity is any one can test it and the results are expected to be the same, else, the theory and knowledge will be rejected as scientific.

What is most critical is the consistency of scientific knowledge which can contribute to generate productive results and contribute to the well being of humanity subject to its potential negativity.

On the other hand, the theologians make no assumption and limitations to their belief, i.e. God exists! without any reservations.

When Russell contrast Science with Theology, he had taken into account the inherent assumptions and limitations of Science and the definite claim of the theologians.
It is on this basis that Russell inferred the 'No Man's Land' placed in the middle between Science and Theology.

What wrong [assumptions and limitations accounted for] with Russell's proposition as explained above?

Your thinking is fallacious and all screwed up.
Russell's mathematics may be useful and contentious but it has nothing to do with the above argument.

Re the model of the No Man's Land;

• Science: all definite knowledge, known and possible to be knowable
  
  Philosophy: no definite knowledge of the unknown within the No Man's land
  
  Theology: dogma of definite knowledge of the unknowable out of ignorance.

the above can represent the continuity from reality to unreality [illusions] with Philosophy as the fence.
With this model, whenever you make a claim of knowledge of reality or reality itself, the question is which side is your claim on.

If your claim is tethered [grounded] to Science, then your claim is possible to be real depending on how much of philosophy [critical thinking, logic, rationality] is used to support it.
Example if we accept all things which can be empirically verified by Science are the most real then we can inferred [philosophically] whatever is unknown can be possible real empirically.

If your claim is grounded on the other side of the fence of philosophy towards theology, then your claim is bordering on the impossibility and certain impossibility if it is related to theism.
When a claim is made on the other side of the philosophical fence without any objective foundation, i.e. not grounded on Science, then it is not possible to be real since there is no way one can verify it as real. One example is God, square-circle, and the likes.

Most of the counters you made against my claims re thing-in-itself and God fall on the other side of the philosophical fence towards the illusions of theology.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is an element of existential psychology to be considered within Russell' statement above.

• Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales.
  Russell

Yes, painful means existential sufferings.
This is resolved within many of strategies from Eastern Philosophies, e.g. Buddhism.

What so many are ignorant of is the fundamental essence of theism eventually is reduced to psychology, i.e. the existential crisis.

It is the same for those non-theists who insists there are real things existing independent of the human conditions.

Word salad...it isn't even wrong....

Where is your argument?
Isn't 'pain' associated with psychology?

[Eodnhoj7]

Science is speculation as well considering many experiments do not line up. I was just reading an article the other day where multiple experiments show that the universe is expanding at different rates....thus experimentation is relative.

Differences in the speed of light are also observed.

It is also speculation as well considering...well...experiments are the physicalizing of abstracts which are speculations. If one is to sit back and look at the history of science, the constant progress in experiments means all facts will eventually be proven wrong given a long enough time line.

Facts are temporal entities, ghosts, that we see for a period of time and then they "vanish".

You fail to take into account that in quoting Bertrand Russell, his principia mathematic was proven false and contradiction...so what authority does he have in defining what philosophy is, when his job is to define (math) and he cannot even do that? Russel, with his worship of progressive linear reason, tends to step outside of his boundaries.


The no mans land is the nature of assumption itself, as it is just empty...this nature stems through all of philosophy, theology and science without being addressed precisely because it points out that not only does the "emperor have no clothes" but a gravity fallacy occurs.

We believe these things because of a mass of intertwined definitions, failing to take into account all of these definitions are cracking the core foundational bricks they are held upon in one respect, in another respect this "mass" of information allows for equivocation.

With increase complexity comes an absence of form and knowledge negates itself.

We choose based off the mass of information, because the mass as formless reflects whatever we desire to see in it based upon our identities (repeated assumptions).

Assuming assumptions is knowledge as knowledge is the reception and projection of patterns, thus even knowledge itself is assumed.

Yes, Science makes assumptions and one very extreme assumption, i.e.
"the thing-in-itself exists as real."
According to Popper, scientific knowledge and theories are at best polished conjectures.
So Science is very limited as stated by Russell above - you missed that??

The fact is despite the above limitations, scientific knowledge is the most objective knowledge subject to its declared assumptions, limitations, principles and scientific method.
On the above foundation, scientific knowledge is optimal knowledge not absolute knowledge.
What makes science the most objective within humanity is any one can test it and the results are expected to be the same, else, the theory and knowledge will be rejected as scientific.

What is most critical is the consistency of scientific knowledge which can contribute to generate productive results and contribute to the well being of humanity subject to its potential negativity.

On the other hand, the theologians make no assumption and limitations to their belief, i.e. God exists! without any reservations.

When Russell contrast Science with Theology, he had taken into account the inherent assumptions and limitations of Science and the definite claim of the theologians.
It is on this basis that Russell inferred the 'No Man's Land' placed in the middle between Science and Theology.

What wrong [assumptions and limitations accounted for] with Russell's proposition as explained above?

Your thinking is fallacious and all screwed up.
Russell's mathematics may be useful and contentious but it has nothing to do with the above argument.

Re the model of the No Man's Land;

• Science: all definite knowledge, known and possible to be knowable
  
  Philosophy: no definite knowledge of the unknown within the No Man's land
  
  Theology: dogma of definite knowledge of the unknowable out of ignorance.

the above can represent the continuity from reality to unreality [illusions] with Philosophy as the fence.
With this model, whenever you make a claim of knowledge of reality or reality itself, the question is which side is your claim on.

If your claim is tethered [grounded] to Science, then your claim is possible to be real depending on how much of philosophy [critical thinking, logic, rationality] is used to support it.
Example if we accept all things which can be empirically verified by Science are the most real then we can inferred [philosophically] whatever is unknown can be possible real empirically.

If your claim is grounded on the other side of the fence of philosophy towards theology, then your claim is bordering on the impossibility and certain impossibility if it is related to theism.
When a claim is made on the other side of the philosophical fence without any objective foundation, i.e. not grounded on Science, then it is not possible to be real since there is no way one can verify it as real. One example is God, square-circle, and the likes.

Most of the counters you made against my claims re thing-in-itself and God fall on the other side of the philosophical fence towards the illusions of theology.

Science assumes the object is real, when in reality what is known of it sensory memories and projections of these memories.

Any object you look at, due to light waves, exists in the past. What we see from the past, under "now", is continually changing and relegated to memory.


Theology is a polished conjecture of a thing in itself and differs little from science in this regard. Science accepts empirical senses as a thing in itself, theology does the same with feelings.

It is all various assumptions and fails to take into account both are empty...that is my claim.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is an element of existential psychology to be considered within Russell' statement above.

• Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales.
  Russell

Yes, painful means existential sufferings.
This is resolved within many of strategies from Eastern Philosophies, e.g. Buddhism.

What so many are ignorant of is the fundamental essence of theism eventually is reduced to psychology, i.e. the existential crisis.

It is the same for those non-theists who insists there are real things existing independent of the human conditions.

Word salad...it isn't even wrong....

Where is your argument?
Isn't 'pain' associated with psychology?

Why argue against nonsense...pain for all we know is a transcendental illusion. Can't see it. Can't feel it in another person...again just nonsense on your part.

But please resume cutting out labels and pasting them in an effort to change the world. Someone will agree with you, it is inevitable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Science assumes the object is real, when in reality what is known of it sensory memories and projections of these memories.

Any object you look at, due to light waves, exists in the past. What we see from the past, under "now", is continually changing and relegated to memory.

Theology is a polished conjecture of a thing in itself and differs little from science in this regard. Science accepts empirical senses as a thing in itself, theology does the same with feelings.

It is all various assumptions and fails to take into account both are empty...that is my claim.

You are right in the above, except
I would say, Science do not accepts empirical senses as a thing in itself,
instead,
Science assumes the thing-in-itself exists to be discovered.
As such since it is an assumption only it cannot be empirical per se.

Theology claims the thing-in-itself to be really real to the extent as a God which listens and answers prayers. Yes that is done with feelings, thus psychological.
If you agree to 'feelings' as the ground of theology, why are you disputing my association of God with psychology?

[Eodnhoj7]

Science assumes the object is real, when in reality what is known of it sensory memories and projections of these memories.

Any object you look at, due to light waves, exists in the past. What we see from the past, under "now", is continually changing and relegated to memory.

Theology is a polished conjecture of a thing in itself and differs little from science in this regard. Science accepts empirical senses as a thing in itself, theology does the same with feelings.

It is all various assumptions and fails to take into account both are empty...that is my claim.

You are right in the above, except
I would say, Science do not accepts empirical senses as a thing in itself,
instead,
Science assumes the thing-in-itself exists to be discovered.
As such since it is an assumption only it cannot be empirical per se.

Theology claims the thing-in-itself to be really real to the extent as a God which listens and answers prayers. Yes that is done with feelings, thus psychological.
If you agree to 'feelings' as the ground of theology, why are you disputing my association of God with psychology?

Because God is referenced as one and many, void of definition...you are left with quantities and qualities.

Considering logos is akin to Divine Plan, you cannot limit it to religion alone but reason by necessity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Word salad...it isn't even wrong....

Where is your argument?
Isn't 'pain' associated with psychology?

Why argue against nonsense...pain for all we know is a transcendental illusion. Can't see it. Can't feel it in another person...again just nonsense on your part.

But please resume cutting out labels and pasting them in an effort to change the world. Someone will agree with you, it is inevitable.

You are conflating and talking nonsense.

• Eodnhoj7: Can't feel it in another person...again just nonsense on your part.
  Again you are ignorant as usual.

Pain is empirically real.
The illusion is when the source of pain is wrong identified.
Or the pain is triggered from an illusion, i.e. seeing a "snake" when in reality it is a rope.

Are you knowledgeable of 'mirror neurons.'
These neurons mirror what [especially pain] is triggered in the other person, thus the ability of humans to empathize and be compassionate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

• A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another.
  -wiki

Note I have exposed your weaknesses and I suggest you improve on them by using an ideal model as a guide [note "guide"]. Your weaknesses are the following;

• 1. Inability to synchronize and align with the topic, i.e. going off tangent, talking oranges when the topic is 'apples'.
  2. Ignorant of the relevant knowledge yet condemn those who are on target as talking nonsense.
  3. Ranting off tangent
  3. Not able to present proper arguments, no syllogism or any implied ones.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Theology claims the thing-in-itself to be really real to the extent as a God which listens and answers prayers. Yes that is done with feelings, thus psychological.
If you agree to 'feelings' as the ground of theology, why are you disputing my association of God with psychology?

Because God is referenced as one and many, void of definition...you are left with quantities and qualities.

Considering logos is akin to Divine Plan, you cannot limit it to religion alone but reason by necessity.

The illusory God emerged out of human psychology [pain, i.e. existential pains], then God as attributed with qualities.
Thus if we deal with the psychology we will be able to resolve all problems arising from God.

[Eodnhoj7]

Where is your argument?
Isn't 'pain' associated with psychology?

Why argue against nonsense...pain for all we know is a transcendental illusion. Can't see it. Can't feel it in another person...again just nonsense on your part.

But please resume cutting out labels and pasting them in an effort to change the world. Someone will agree with you, it is inevitable.

You are conflating and talking nonsense.

• Eodnhoj7: Can't feel it in another person...again just nonsense on your part.
  Again you are ignorant as usual.

Pain is empirically real.
The illusion is when the source of pain is wrong identified.
Or the pain is triggered from an illusion, i.e. seeing a "snake" when in reality it is a rope.

Are you knowledgeable of 'mirror neurons.'
These neurons mirror what [especially pain] is triggered in the other person, thus the ability of humans to empathize and be compassionate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

• A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another.
  -wiki

Note I have exposed your weaknesses and I suggest you improve on them by using an ideal model as a guide [note "guide"]. Your weaknesses are the following;

• 1. Inability to synchronize and align with the topic, i.e. going off tangent, talking oranges when the topic is 'apples'.
  2. Ignorant of the relevant knowledge yet condemn those who are on target as talking nonsense.
  3. Ranting off tangent
  3. Not able to present proper arguments, no syllogism or any implied ones.

If pain is empirically real then show it, because as far as I am aware it is subjective.

[Eodnhoj7]

Theology claims the thing-in-itself to be really real to the extent as a God which listens and answers prayers. Yes that is done with feelings, thus psychological.
If you agree to 'feelings' as the ground of theology, why are you disputing my association of God with psychology?

Because God is referenced as one and many, void of definition...you are left with quantities and qualities.

Considering logos is akin to Divine Plan, you cannot limit it to religion alone but reason by necessity.

The illusory God emerged out of human psychology [pain, i.e. existential pains], then God as attributed with qualities.
Thus if we deal with the psychology we will be able to resolve all problems arising from God.

But pain is an illusion as it cannot be empirically proven.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Because God is referenced as one and many, void of definition...you are left with quantities and qualities.

Considering logos is akin to Divine Plan, you cannot limit it to religion alone but reason by necessity.

The illusory God emerged out of human psychology [pain, i.e. existential pains], then God as attributed with qualities.
Thus if we deal with the psychology we will be able to resolve all problems arising from God.

But pain is an illusion as it cannot be empirically proven.

That is why I state you are very ignorant on the relevant issues.
Yes, pain is firstly subjective, but it is objective when there is intersubjective consensus on what is 'pain'.

I suggest you do research on the subject of 'pain' down to the generic neural circuit that trigger pain.
Example; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain#Mechanism