Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:01 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:58 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:56 pm

Who questions must answer.

A question demands an answer.

Who questions must answer.

It's a catch 22

Equals infinity.

Infinity expressing itself fintely.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:06 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:01 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:58 pm

Who questions must answer.

A question demands an answer.

Who questions must answer.

It's a catch 22

Equals infinity.

Infinity expressing itself fintely.

well, alrighty, then

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:10 pm
well, alrighty, then

Duration: 4 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tJGk4ofc18

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:29 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:07 pmThis is true: but we must be very careful here, not to make a mistake that many people -- indeed most people today -- seem to make. And that error is to make an epistemological claim (i.e. a statement about what we know) and then use it to make a further claim about ontology (i.e. about what really exists, independent of our knowledge).

I think I had already worked this out and quite some time ago.

Let me put it this way: If I recur, let us say exclusively or solely, to the sort of epistemological methodology that Uwot employs and is committed to, I will only be able to come to his conclusions. And those conclusions will appear to me (I will *self-convince*) to be absolutely and undeniably true.

But in my case I cannot come to those conclusions because I would have to turn against core, inner experience (or experiences) that arise out of a different epistemology. It is one that many 'hard materialists' (If indeed Uwot defines himself as such) cannot understand. And that sort of *hard materialist* has a great deal or power and influence today. Why? Because the explanatory system in which he and they ensconce themselves has a tremendous utility and functionality within the specific domains that it presides over.

It answers many many questions. But it can never get to the heart of the largest and the most important questions.

Now, I stand in relation to Christianity -- the Christian revelation, and the Jewish revelation -- as one with this perspective. I guess it would have to be described as mystic (in the general sense of that word). It is definitely not *scientific* nor rationalist in the strict sense.

All fair. And I think your comments about Hard Materialism are quite correct.

Hard Materialism is a creed. It begins when one insists that nothing but Material enties can be referred to when ultimately accounting for anything. In that sense, it's pre-scientific: because it asserts its claim even over entities we have never investigated yet; but it usually begins with exactly what you say...a sort of Scientism, an ideological commitment premised on the successes that material sciences show in the material world.

The blithe supposition is that because strictly material sciences work so well for strictly material problems, they must necessarily work for all problems, be they material or not. And for those problems (like "consciousness" or "identity" or "rationality" or "ethics" or "theology") that material sciences can seem to make no real progress on at all, they must simply be false problems. That's the assumption.

It's a heck of a jump, to be sure: but lots of people take it. Good on you for seeing through that illogic so clearly.

The problem of my view, when it faces or confronts The Christian Edifice is that it (this stance, this view) also sees the Christian Construct as just that: a construct. It is an entire system that organizes perceptions, and orders them systematically.

Not entirely wrong, of course. In a sense, you can call Christianity a "construct," in that it does indeed order one's worldview.

But that begs the most important question: Who "constructed" it?

Did men, in their devious ways, come up with it? Or was Christianity as plan "constructed" by God Himself? Which way was it?

Saying "It's a construct" won't answer that question, will it?

Not all "constructs" are false, you know. The Scientific Method itself is a "construct." That is to say, it was a pattern of thought invented by a particular person (Francis Bacon) at a particular time (the 17th Century). It involved a voluntary narrowing of human attention to matters of material manipulation, and the exclusion from the field of view of such things as, say, "tradition," "received opinions," "non-testable theories," "metaphysics," and so on.

But the Scientific Method was something more than a construct, too. It was simply the most precise, accurate and useful tool for unpacking material phenomena that the world has so far known. It turned out that it corresponded very well to the ways in which material things operate. So rather than being a gratitous "construct" or somebody's mere opinion, it turned out to be the key to technological understanding....and precipitated the industrial and technological revolutions that followed, because it worked on what it was supposed to work on.

What humans would like...but maybe cannot have...is a sort of similarly precise methodology for addressing metaphysical questions. For clearly, there are metaphysical enties (like "consciousness" or "morality") in the world, and we all live as if they're real; but material sciences are not getting us at these things.

But I digress...

And also consciousness that must interpret! I have to create pictures, but the picture is not the reality. The reality can, I gather, be intuited but I do not think it can be directly perceived. Thus it can only be intimated.

So, within the position that I have, I can look at and consider various different systems for what they in fact are: attempts to describe, attempts to picture.

The murky telescope again, I think.

I am both less amenable and yet somewhat amenable to seeing the Christian revelation is the absolute and strictly exclusive terms that you employ (or that Christianity employs). Why? Because it leads to an imperious overbearing assertion that *my view is the right one*.

Well, hold on a sec.

Let's think that through. Is it automatically the case that any answer that insists that "it's view is the right one" is wrong?

Nevermind how "imperious," or "overbearing" or "exclusionary" we might think it is: our antipathy to them is merely emotional, and comes, I think, from our social millieu. Let's set those emotions aside, though, for a minute, and consider the proposition baldly: is something that claims to be "right" automatically therefore "wrong"?

I see no reason why we would even begin to think so. If the answer "4" to the question "2+2 = " excludes every other answer, I see no reason to think it makes "4" the wrong answer. And in a similar way, if "O c" is the freezing point of water at sea level, under normal atmospheric pressure, I see no reason to object that that answer excludes too many other answers people might prefer. Likewise, I do not see that if somebody's description of God excludes other people's descriptions, that should induce us to think that description must therefore, and for no other reason, be wrong.

So help me out here: how does being "exclusive" make an answer wrong? It seems more obvious to me that any answer that is genuinely, factually "right" is bound to be the most "exclusive" sort of answer one can locate.

On the other hand, one must be able to see and distinguish one thing from another. That is to say to conceive of, and also appreciate, respect (and defend) hierarchies-of-value.

Right.

Some things in any system of value, rate higher and lower than others. And we might well add that maybe some are more genuinely deserving of value than others. To hate value itself, to hate hierarchy, is to hate excellence, success, achievement and progress. But any value immediately places all relevant things into hierchical order. It cannot help but do so: it's automatic.

Now, then, why should not metaphysical answers also have thier own hierarchy of value? And we might further ask, if they do not, then how do we say they can have any value at all?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:58 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:16 pmScience is the study of phenomena: observing, measuring and prediction.

...Sure, within the realm to which science and measurement devote themselves.

What is measurable that science can't measure?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:58 pmI think I understand it well enough.

Well done you. So what is science?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:58 pmBut I do think that you have a strict and limited view of philosophy. Which follows, of course, given your core position as an atheist.

Really? You think not committing to a belief is strict and limited?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:51 pm I assume that you needed to apply a new or different or alternative way of seeing, and thus of perceiving and being, because you felt constrained by the limitations imposed in your early formation as a Christian -- that is if I have interpreted what you have written accurately.

Does a person need to replace Christianity with something specific... or can it be that Christianity is just let go?

Is it not sensible for a person to say 'I will take the value I see from each path and continue exploring, as there is no single path I want to follow'?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:51 pm

Lacewing wrote:But what happens when they let go of needing to be 'right', and realize how much more there is than that?

This is something I have thought a great deal about because I am a product of *radical California*

So am I, and thankfully so... although I don't refer to it that way, and I don't live there anymore. I felt aligned with it from the time I arrived there. I imagine there are other places in the world that tend to explore beyond conventions. I appreciate that -- it seems more reasonable and beneficial to me than not doing so. I understand why people find value in conventions -- but there's a difference (for me) between using conventions that make life efficient, and handing one's life and potential over to conventions.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:51 pmthis general influence to come up with new paradigms, new and radical ways of being

Is that bad? Do you think that what I've said and suggested is outrageous and disruptive? It seems sensible and useful to me. Is it possible to see how Christianity is outrageous and disruptive? Do convention and tradition get a 'free pass' to escape the same level of scrutiny that is applied to what is seen as radical thought?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:51 pmI think we have to understand the emergence of the post-Christian culture. Obviously, given the political and social problems that are starkly visible in America today this 'seeing and understanding' become imperative.

It appears to me that Christianity developed to serve the people at that time (of its development), but it has morphed into something much different to serve and be manipulated by people of our time. The 'good' it inspires is not exclusive to nor dependent on Christianity. Inspiration and 'good' comes through humans in countless ways. It seems to me that Christianity is tangled up in archaic beliefs that actually stunt our development and limit our awareness. We cling to it in fear, rather than stepping aside from it to recognize the SAME good all throughout us.

A recognition of love and good and reverence is what I share with the Christian view -- I just don't assign it to the framework they do. In many ways, it appears that I (and countless others) experience more acceptance and love and gratitude than some who would call themselves true Christians. So what are those Christians actually doing, and who are they actually serving? I think it's reasonable to ask.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:51 pm When one gives up understanding what is *right* one give up belief in what is right and also good.

Well, that's not quite what I said, nor my intent of course! I'm speaking about a person's focus/agenda on being 'right' above all else -- such that they are inclined to manipulate and deny that which does not align with them.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:51 pmOne can be said to enter into a zone of uncertainty. If one cannot decide, one cannot build because one does not have a solid ground on which to build, nor the definite tools needed to build.

What are we building? What is our purpose? Does certainty have as much capability of limiting us as uncertainty?

I am not suggesting that we somehow suddenly and completely throw out all convention. I am suggesting that we recognize convention for what it is... and be aware of the limitations that it may impose, as well as considering the potential that exists beyond it. There can be value in doing that. Some people may not want to do that. Many people, like myself, seek a balance between having enough structure to build lives, but not worshipping those structures -- so that we can see beyond them.

Immanuel Can to Alexis wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:07 pm But let me submit to you that that is not the only way things can be.

Such a concept is what I submit to you all the time, Mr. Can.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:17 pmDoes a person need to replace Christianity with something specific... or can it be that Christianity is just let go?

To answer such a broad question, and one so intimately bound up in Occidental categories -- indeed our *Occidental civilization* itself, would require a great deal of careful preamble.

What you seem to be asking, however, is Is it good, or necessary, for one solitary individual to 'let it go'.

But isn't the question you ask more or less a statement about what you yourself have done? How would you answer the question for another? How could you answer the question if (as I say) it pertains to Occidental civilization and Occidental categories of valuation?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:17 pmIs that bad? Do you think that what I've said and suggested is outrageous and disruptive? It seems sensible and useful to me. Is it possible to see how Christianity is outrageous and disruptive? Do convention and tradition get a 'free pass' to escape the same level of scrutiny that is applied to what is seen as radical thought?

I do not think that I would say that it was *bad*. Because things are what they are. Things happen. Some things get better and improve, some things deteriorate and get corrupt.

In order for you to make sense of my position you would have to understand that I do regard a large aspect of the Sixties (and radicalism, and also blind rebellion of a general sort) to have resulted in destructive outcomes. But I could not ever say that it was all bad.

But there is very little in life that is *all bad*. And there are often positive elements in generally bad situations or occurrences.

But what I can say is that after everything is said and done, and speaking specifically about the Sixties and all that transpired, that in the end it all has to be assessed -- that is, someone must assess it. There has to be some value-system that assesses it. And for there to be a value-system there has to be a recognition of how values come to be defined. How values come to be valued. And in this context, in our culture, I can say with a high degree of certainty that underneath all our valuations one will find the larger, Christian conversation.

So the way I see things -- this is my position, or my proposition -- that when that which produced our system of values and indeed underscores valuation is itself undermined, then in a slow decay the very notion of values is undermined. People do lose a grip on what is to be valued, and why it is to be valued.

All my arguments are based in an examination of causation. Nothing in our world simply arises out of nothing. There are long causal chains.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:17 pm What are we building? What is our purpose? Does certainty have as much capability of limiting us as uncertainty?

Well, there you have brought out the question! It is the largest question that can be asked.

My view is that *the Culture Wars* have to do with essential questions of value and valuation.

And the things we are talking about here are definitely tied to and bound up in the Culture Wars.

So it is good to get the proper questions out in the open.

Dontaskme wrote:

“But you would not understand what you were looking at without analysis. It works both ways. Reality is like a two way mirror.”

owl of Minerva:

You are missing the point. You are hung up on analysis. There are two ways of knowing: insight; revelation, revealed truth which could be by a prophet or by the Oracle at Delphi. If it needs to be analyzed to be understood, then insight is missing.

With science it is knowing by thought experiments and analysis of prior views. One example is time as seen by Aristotle and Newton. Both views were modified into a third view by Einstein which lasted until Quantum Mechanics. Which in its turn will last until the next discovery. To understand what time is, in its essence, would require knowing the nature of reality. Science is not about knowing, it is about finding out in increments and that requires analysis.

Religion is different, when it is analyzed as theology it becomes a study of reality, not insight into the nature of reality, which is what religion is in its essence. Unlike science analysis in religion obscures rather than enlightens.

Both ways of knowing insight and analysis are valid, and should run parallel to each other.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:29 pm...many 'hard materialists' (If indeed Uwot defines himself as such)...

Has it crossed your mind to ask uwot?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:01 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:53 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 4:07 pm

God created man. We exist cuz He willed it. God, as I see it, doesn't need us to believe in Him, but our existence depends on His interest in us.

So, to you, a person created man.

You exist because a person will it.

And,

A person does not need man to believe in the person, but your existence depends on a person's interest in you.

If this is not correct, then why not?

yes: God created man

yes: I exist becuz God willed it

...and...

yes: God doesn't require my interest in Him, but I require His interest in me

it's correct

And, so you did not sound completely insane here, you conveniently left out that 'God', to you, is a person. Which MEANS what is correct to you is;

A person created man (as well as all of the other humans).

You exist because a person willed it/you.

And,

You require the interest of a person in you.

While we are here now, WHY do you REQUIRE the INTEREST of a person 'in you'?

Are you REALLY that self-insecure that you NEED a person/some God to HAVE INTEREST in 'you'?

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 9:42 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:29 pm...many 'hard materialists' (If indeed Uwot defines himself as such)...

Has it crossed your mind to ask uwot?

Here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of just how often the human beings, in the days when this was being written, would make ASSUMPTIONS, BEFORE they would gain CLARITY.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 9:42 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:29 pm...many 'hard materialists' (If indeed Uwot defines himself as such)...

Has it crossed your mind to ask uwot?

I thought you charged for questions? A man has a right to a living. But I am running short this week.

Asking uwot might be like asking the Wizard of Oz for a favor . . .

"Jiminy Crickets!"