Christianity

[Age]

I don't know.

The answer is REALLY VERY, VERY SIMPLE. If ANY one is interested.

Go on then.

AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE WITH, and BY, EVERY one.

[Age]

If I make reference to truth it is clear that it has to be truths that are agreed-upon.

Well it is now that you have said so. I have no issue with people using language in any way they choose - it is none of my fucking business how two or more people communicate. But so you understand, my use of 'truth' assumes some correspondence with reality, regardless of how agreed-upon it might be.

LOL How could ' your use of 'truth' ' assume some correspondence with 'reality', if what 'reality' IS, is NOT in agreement with someone?

What IS 'reality' based upon, EXACTLY, if NOT 'in agreement'?

But that is of course one of my primary areas of interest: disagreement.

It is essential to growth.

[Nick_A]

You have qualifications but what have you understood? Do you even know the difference between knowledge and understanding?

More precisely than you, I expect. Let's start with the easy bit; do you know what knowledge is?

Do those who offer qualifications understand anything either?

Well Nick_A, while it is true that academic achievement is no guarantee of profundity, you can be quite certain that those charged with examining the others behind them, have the chops to do so.

You are the one whining. I am the one questioning. Do you know that this site has never had an exploration of the depths of meaning within Plato's Cave analogy.

Now who's whining? If in the 10 years that you have darkened this forum there hasn't been the exploration you wish for, whose fault is that?

It means that people are more content with denial, whining, and complaining rather than exploring what is considered the essence of philosophy. The normal result of qualifications

Lemme guess: you haven't got any qualifications. The mechanics of Plato's Cave will be understood by most who have studied philosophy, and nearly all who have a Bachelor's degree in the stuff. As I said, no competent philosopher is a naïve realist and if you understood that, you would appreciate that there has been a lot of discussion about what Plato's Cave means.

Uwot

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:12 pmYou have qualifications but what have you understood? Do you even know the difference between knowledge and understanding?

More precisely than you, I expect. Let's start with the easy bit; do you know what knowledge is?

Knowledge pertains to the associations of worldly facts. The more acceptable associations a person exhibits, the more knowledge he is said to have.


Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:12 pmDo those who offer qualifications understand anything either?

Well Nick_A, while it is true that academic achievement is no guarantee of profundity, you can be quite certain that those charged with examining the others behind them, have the chops to do so.

Who are these people? For you, the computer is the ultimate expression of knowledge. It parrots back previously accepted knowledge. The computer has great knowledge but what does it understand. You have knowledge but what do you understand? What does it mean “to understand?”


Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:12 pmYou are the one whining. I am the one questioning. Do you know that this site has never had an exploration of the depths of meaning within Plato's Cave analogy.

Now who's whining? If in the 10 years that you have darkened this forum there hasn't been the exploration you wish for, whose fault is that?

I tried once but got kicked out. I learned that the realities expressed in the cave analogy are too disruptive to tolerate. So I’d rather wait for the next attempt and avoid all this disruption and let them take the blame.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:12 pmIt means that people are more content with denial, whining, and complaining rather than exploring what is considered the essence of philosophy. The normal result of qualifications

Lemme guess: you haven't got any qualifications. The mechanics of Plato's Cave will be understood by most who have studied philosophy, and nearly all who have a Bachelor's degree in the stuff. As I said, no competent philosopher is a naïve realist and if you understood that, you would appreciate that there has been a lot of discussion about what Plato's Cave means.

Talk is cheap but who understands it? Who has verified it? What good is your knowledge in the world if the collective results of ignorance remain the same?

[uwot]

The more acceptable associations a person exhibits, the more knowledge he is said to have.

Who decides what is acceptable?

For you, the computer is the ultimate expression of knowledge.

This kinda illustrates why people get fed up with you. Most people will fill blanks in the canvas to create an image of who they are talking to, but how can anyone have a sensible conversation with someone who is talking to their own fictional character? I don't believe the computer is the ultimate expression of knowledge, and if you are going to insist I do, there is fuck all point continuing.

I learned that the realities expressed in the cave analogy are too disruptive to tolerate.

Far from being disruptive Plato's Cave is part of the furniture. Any student of philosophy will be familiar with its influence on epistemology, it being an expression the fact that we don't see reality as it is, and its influence on Christianity, given Plato's conjecture that the source of the 'shadows' of our perception is a more lovely and perfect world outside.
What is disruptive is your refusal to accept that the reason people disagree with you is that they have their own equally coherent narrative. That's the thing about your knowledge, very few people find your associations acceptable. So by your own criterion, you don't know much.

[Harry Baird]

AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE WITH, and BY, EVERY one.

Just to be clear: you're saying that we'll know we've found "the One Truth" when we have a candidate truth which everybody agrees is "the One Truth"?

If so: I don't think that that's sufficient as a criterion. We might all be wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE WITH, and BY, EVERY one.

Just to be clear: you're saying that we'll know we've found "the One Truth" when we have a candidate truth which everybody agrees is "the One Truth"?

If so: I don't think that that's sufficient as a criterion. We might all be wrong.

Hi, Harry.

That's the right point to make. Truth is not a matter of consensus. Opinion polls do not make gravity work upwards, or mercury not poisonous, or the Sun revolve around Pluto. Reality is reality. Truth is truth. Human knowledge and opinions are only as good as they relate to the objective truth of any situation; to the extent they depart from it, they're just some measure of delusion.

Why do people always confuse ontology with epistemology? It's such a common mistake. And why do they confuse any "-ology," any kind of human knowledge, with veracity or objective factuality?

[Nick_A]

The more acceptable associations a person exhibits, the more knowledge he is said to have.

Who decides what is acceptable?

For you, the computer is the ultimate expression of knowledge.

This kinda illustrates why people get fed up with you. Most people will fill blanks in the canvas to create an image of who they are talking to, but how can anyone have a sensible conversation with someone who is talking to their own fictional character? I don't believe the computer is the ultimate expression of knowledge, and if you are going to insist I do, there is fuck all point continuing.

I learned that the realities expressed in the cave analogy are too disruptive to tolerate.

Far from being disruptive Plato's Cave is part of the furniture. Any student of philosophy will be familiar with its influence on epistemology, it being an expression the fact that we don't see reality as it is, and its influence on Christianity, given Plato's conjecture that the source of the 'shadows' of our perception is a more lovely and perfect world outside.
What is disruptive is your refusal to accept that the reason people disagree with you is that they have their own equally coherent narrative. That's the thing about your knowledge, very few people find your associations acceptable. So by your own criterion, you don't know much.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 12:41 pmThe more acceptable associations a person exhibits, the more knowledge he is said to have.

Who decides what is acceptable?

The academics and the politicians. Like Socrates, all who question the superiority of their knowledge must be eliminated for disturbing the peace.


Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 12:41 pmFor you, the computer is the ultimate expression of knowledge.

This kinda illustrates why people get fed up with you. Most people will fill blanks in the canvas to create an image of who they are talking to, but how can anyone have a sensible conversation with someone who is talking to their own fictional character? I don't believe the computer is the ultimate expression of knowledge, and if you are going to insist I do, there is fuck all point continuing.

Who or what has more knowledge than a computer? If you would reason for a moment you would think the computer doesn’t understand. But this requires contemplating the difference between knowledge and understanding which you won’t do.


Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 12:41 pmI learned that the realities expressed in the cave analogy are too disruptive to tolerate.

Far from being disruptive Plato's Cave is part of the furniture. Any student of philosophy will be familiar with its influence on epistemology, it being an expression the fact that we don't see reality as it is, and its influence on Christianity, given Plato's conjecture that the source of the 'shadows' of our perception is a more lovely and perfect world outside.
What is disruptive is your refusal to accept that the reason people disagree with you is that they have their own equally coherent narrative. That's the thing about your knowledge, very few people find your associations acceptable. So by your own criterion, you don't know much.

You seem to prefer to be judged by academics to determine your acceptability. I prefer to listen to those who have verified through experience.

If people realized the uselessness of arguing duality, they wouldn’t violently defend absurdity. But this is what many in philosophy do. They have knowledge but lack understanding so defend absurdity. The serious student of reason wants to know why. But it is too disruptive to the many to be taken seriously.

[Harry Baird]

I see an IC. Hi there.

Truth is not a matter of consensus.

We're in agreement then. Good.

To add a related thought: sometimes, though, consensus is the best approximation we have for knowing truth. For example: if we are non-experts in some scientific discipline, the closest as laymen we might be able to personally get to knowledge of the truth of some matter in that discipline is by assessing the consensus of scientists working in it.

And another: consensus on truth, even if wrong, can be at least socio-politically stabilising, as per AJ lamenting the loss of the past consensus of our "christianesque" culture.

Why I felt it useful to add a couple of related thoughts I don't know. They're rather gratuitous. Oh well.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why do people always confuse ontology with epistemology? It's such a common mistake. And why do they confuse any "-ology," any kind of human knowledge, with veracity or objective factuality?

The reason is quite simple: an *ontological* truth can be defined as one pertaining to mathematics, measurement, quantification, and the general an non-changing 'facts' best defined through material science.

In former times those truths that you define as 'epistemological' were put forward as being of the same sort. At a certain point these 'edifices' of asserted truth were challenged. It is quite simple really. What was asserted to be solid and absolute came to be seen differently.

I gather that your assertion is that the 'epistemological' truths on which the Christian belief-system (and all other religious systems I am aware of) is built are comparable to the 'ontological' truths about which there is no disagreement? If you are unable to distinguish why this is so I'd suggest that the problem is yours.

This simply points to a gulf and a chasm between two systems that cannot, and will never be, reconciled.

All of the truths which are defined through religious belief are of another order. They can in no sense be compared to those truths that are physical and that undergird our world.

So the question you ask is, from where I sit, a question that reveals your own confused position. You believe some of the most outrageous things, things that are in fact unbelievable, because you yourself are confused about these categorical separations.

It is not you who will come along and correct other people for their categorical errors, but rather you who will be challenged to recognize your own. Having read what you write -- the absurd assertions you make and which are foundational to your odd beliefs -- I would suggest you examine your own 'mistakes' and correct them.

And why do they confuse any "-ology," any kind of human knowledge, with veracity or objective factuality

There are thousands and millions of agreements that can easily be got, from almost anyone, in relation to thousands and millions of objective facts. About these there is no confusion.

But all other realms that touch on metaphysical truths -- these are of another order.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Truth is not a matter of consensus.

Truth is indeed 'a matter of consensus' when it comes to a whole range and array of truth-assertions. This is a no-brainer.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And another: consensus on truth, even if wrong, can be at least socio-politically stabilising, as per AJ lamenting the loss of the past consensus of our "christianesque" culture.

Harry it seems you have not clarified sufficiently the contrast between the two domains of knowing. But surely you are not ignorant of the difference?

The truths defined by religious authority -- this is really the backdrop to the entire conversation -- can be asserted as being truths of an absolute sort ('truth claims') but they cannot function nor gain assent from all people in the same way that a material truth (fact) is able to, and without controversy.

When I speak of loss of consensus I am only speaking of metaphysically asserted truths. All of these asserted truths have been challenged. The consensus to agree to a metaphysical truth or principle will only take place when those individuals who are dealing in these terms agree to agree.

[Harry Baird]

And another: consensus on truth, even if wrong, can be at least socio-politically stabilising, as per AJ lamenting the loss of the past consensus of our "christianesque" culture.

Harry it seems you have not clarified sufficiently the contrast between the two domains of knowing. But surely you are not ignorant of the difference?

The truths defined by religious authority -- this is really the backdrop to the entire conversation -- can be asserted as being truths of an absolute sort ('truth claims') but they cannot function nor gain assent from all people in the same way that a material truth (fact) is able to, and without controversy.

When I speak of loss of consensus I am only speaking of metaphysically asserted truths. All of these asserted truths have been challenged. The consensus to agree to a metaphysical truth or principle will only take place when those individuals who are dealing in these terms agree to agree.

I'm a little puzzled by your response, AJ, but, drawing on what I've read of yours in the past, I think that your view is that there are no genuine metaphysical truths, merely metaphysical assertions ("impositions"). Is that sort of what you're getting at here?

[Immanuel Can]

I see an IC. Hi there.

Truth is not a matter of consensus.

We're in agreement then. Good.

To add a related thought: sometimes, though, consensus is the best approximation we have for knowing truth.

Oh yes...fair enough. Often the "more" are more right than the "fewer." But it's never by any means certain.

And another: consensus on truth, even if wrong, can be at least socio-politically stabilising, as per AJ lamenting the loss of the past consensus of our "christianesque" culture.

I'm not sure if "stabilizing" is a good quality. The Nazis "stabilized" a disordered Weimar Republic. Stalin "stabilized" a volatile USSR. Sometimes "stability" is the last thing we should want, especially when the "stable" situation is one of tyranny. So despite being a Christian, I have no love for the idea of using "Christian values" to force a consensus upon unwilling participants. I'd rather use reasonable persuasion to convince, since a man convinced against his will remains a skeptic, at best.

But I can grant this: more than "stability" the "consensus on truth" is necessary for a society to move in a coordinated direction...at least a consensus on how truth is to be arbitrated, and hopefully, one based on facts, evidence, logic and such. There's no guarantee, of course, that a "coordinated" direction would be a good one -- it could be a coordinated march into Poland or Bulgaria, for example. But too much disagreement certainly makes collective projects impossible.

[Immanuel Can]

Truth is not a matter of consensus.

Truth is indeed 'a matter of consensus'

Nope. It never is.

[Harry Baird]

Oh yes...fair enough. Often the "more" are more right than the "fewer." But it's never by any means certain.

Agreed. I was also trying to get at the idea that, often, consensus among the more expert is more right than consensus among the less expert (and I'm referring to genuine expertise, not the "hmm, let me do a quick bit of googling here" type).

And another: consensus on truth, even if wrong, can be at least socio-politically stabilising, as per AJ lamenting the loss of the past consensus of our "christianesque" culture.

I'm not sure if "stabilizing" is a good quality.

How about if we qualify it like this: all other things being equal, socio-political stability is better than socio-political instability?

And I know that that's kind of tricky because it's hard to disentangle stability from all of the other things that are supposed to be equal, but it's just a rough qualifier in the hope of some sort of rough agreement between us on this.