Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 1:02 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 12:27 am Certainly no reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. Personally, I think it would be a rather nasty thing to have to witness on a Sunday morning.

Certainly and most definitely precisely that.

Thus it is referred to as “the unbloody sacrifice”.

Yes yes, also known these days as the "shiraz sacrifice".

Harry, AJ: my apologies for the cut & paste affair that follows.

AJ,

You say.: "the Christian story...says, in essence, everything is messed up because we are messed up....*your lineage* did things that corrupted creation."

Harry sez.: "I am much less interested in the Story...and in whatever principles and morals are embedded in that Story, and much more interested in the actual bleeping truth!"

Yes, exactly. Borrowing loosely from Harry...

These principles are constructs, fictions that work, but have no meat to them, no reality. This is the position of iam, harbal, and the other amoralists and subjectivists.

...or...

"These principles are universal and obvious." They hold any where or when, on everyone, becuz these principles are real. This is my position.

It does not seem to me there is a middle ground.

I cannot place you in either camp.

-----

AJ, you say: "My own personal view is that “Satan” is a metaphor for the conflict we feel and cannot escape from because we see very clearly how terrible life actually is. A system in which living beings must consume other living beings in an eternal ecological cycle of violence, and a world that is mutable and shifting (becoming). As well as the recognition that our own life depends on crazy-making compromises we must make with that “world”, that reality."

You understand this is not, has never been, a universal (or even a majority) assessment, yeah?

You say: "you must realize that the visible model, our Earth and its biological/physical ecological system, is the ‘reality’ that you are chained to. There, in that, there are no truths, no right and wrong, and certainly no evil."

Yes, the mechanical world is amoral. Man, however, is not of the world. He lives in it, is subject(ed) to it, but the machine is not the source of him.

"Principles, morals, ethics, values & meaning, these are metaphysical and pertain to human beings — and conceivably other sentient intelligent beings."

But, these principles, are they real or they are useful fictions?

"Truth at those ‘higher’ levels have no tangible existence on our planet."

Truth -- the principles -- are as real as the men they're woven into or they are fictions. Useful fictions, 'ordering' fictions, but empty.

"Tell me now please: what is true?"

I can tell you what I know, what, it seems to me, everyone knows in the bones. Seems to me: we don't have to strive to find or uncover truth so much as we need to disabuse ourselves of the counsel of those who say truth doesn't exist, or who distort it to our detriment and their supposed benefit.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 1:53 amBut, these principles, are they real or they are useful fictions?

The principles, the admonitions or the “commands” are as real as any metaphysical thing (imperative, impulse). But they seem to be of “another order entirely”.

Where did they come from? Well, where did anything come from? Name the most intangible thing you can think of. Is it real or unreal?

What about a motivating ideal? What is it? Of what substance is it?

Again, what is “revealed” (revealed truth, revelation) is always represented as entering the world through intrusion, by imposition.

Make of that what you will. Like you I am uncertain what to conclude.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 12:22 am [In our Earth and its biological/physical ecological system], there are no truths, no right and wrong, and certainly no evil.

Principles, morals, ethics, values & meaning, these are metaphysical and pertain to human beings

The particular distinction that you are trying to draw here between biological/physical truths and normative/metaphysical truths is false and non-existent. It is just as correct in this context to say that truths about the biological/physical world are not "in" that world but rather are "of" that world and (apprehended) "in" the mind as it is to say the same of truths about the normative/metaphysical world. The "world" referred to by normative/metaphysical truths just happens to be a conceptual one rather than a tangible one.

This much applies to all such representational truths: they are (apprehended) "in" the mind, and "of" (not "in") a reality beyond the mind.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 12:22 am Hence, naturally, the notion and concept of “revealed truth”.

If it is revealed, then, presumably, it is objective, otherwise it would be better described as "constructed" truth.

You imply, then, that normative/metaphysical truth is objective.

This, too, undercuts the supposed distinction you are trying to make with biological/physical truth, because it, too, is objective.

Also: by whom or by what are these truths revealed?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 12:22 am Tell me now please: what is true?

I'll instead refer you back to a recent-ish post of mine which answers the more relevant question: what is truth(fulness)? (You will note that for the purposes of the above, I have subsumed normative truths as a sub-category of representational truths as I wrote in that linked post arguably can be done. And I note that even though that linked post was addressed to you, you ignored it. Since it addresses fundamental differences between us, which I see as conceptual confusion on your part, and which have now re-arisen, that was disappointing).

Artificial intelligence as the tangible manifestation of “the fallen angel”.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 2:17 am The particular distinction that you are trying to draw here between biological/physical truths and normative/metaphysical truths is false and non-existent.

No, I don’t think so. The distinction is quite useful and I believe needed.

Absent man, the biological ecological world of nature would simply resume — doing what it does. Without thought, without decision, and certainly without self-consciousness.

I grant that we are, perhaps predominantly, physical, biological beings subsumed or ensconced in that, but I will continue to see metaphysics as pertaining to a domain that I can only describe as beyond or perhaps outside. It enters into our world with a contrary will.

If it is revealed, then, presumably, it is objective, otherwise it would be better described as "constructed" truth.

But it is not “objective” quite in the sense you seem to mean. It is potent. It can have extremely real and consequential effect, but it remains outside of the category of sheerly objective. It also requires assent and the perception of it depends on an individual capable of perceiving / receiving it.

Perhaps as impetus or inspiration it could be said to be molded through interpretation and thus constructed. But what you mean, I think, by constructed is invented or fabricated.

The problem with that assertion is that it denies ‘metaphysical authority’.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 1:53 am It does not seem to me there is a middle ground.

I cannot place you in either camp.

We will probably never know which camp he is in, and, indeed, he probably does not even know nor care himself, because...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 8:18 pm Perhaps it is s defect but I can see benefit in perspectives that are mutually exclusive and even those that (appear) to negate each other.

...he does not in general strive for nor value logical consistency (nor, often enough, in my observation, the clarity on which consistency depends), and almost certainly not in this particular case.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 2:44 am ...he does not in general strive for nor value logical consistency

Feel free to apply what labels and designations that work for you. I am reminded of an exchange I had with IC about predication. You are aware of the strict binary Aristotelean predicates of course. It either is or it isn’t.

I referred to another predicate system of seven possible predicates. Not just two.

Jaina seven-valued logic is system of argumentation developed by Jaina philosophers and thinkers in ancient India to support and substantiate their theory of pluralism. This argumentation system has seven distinct semantic predicates which may be thought of as seven different truth values.

You imply it is a defect that I hesitate to resort to binaries. So then: rush forward with imposed, arbitrary binaries if that helps you in some way to resolve conflict.

The “logical consistency” you strive for certainty has a value within specific domains, that I grant you.

But in regard to the things I think about I perceive no alternative but a more fluid predicate system. I don’t ask that you accept this. I offer it by way of explanation.

We will probably never know which camp he is in, and, indeed, he probably because does not even know nor care himself...

That is a cynical way of putting it. It is as if you are sure that you have greater clarity. But you are just referring to a marked mental tendency of your own make up.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 2:10 am Again, what is “revealed” (revealed truth, revelation) is always represented as entering the world through intrusion, by imposition.

I can certainly account for that. A contortion, anomaly to what we perceive to be normal reality.

AJ,

"The principles...seem to be of “another order entirely”."

Sourced 'higher' or 'elsewhere', embodied 'here'.

"Where did they come from? Well, where did anything come from?"

The Creator, The First Principle.

"Name the most intangible thing you can think of. Is it real or unreal?"

Form (in the hylomorphic sense [information]). Undoubtably real.

"What about a motivating ideal?"

As real as the man who holds himself to it.

"What is it?"

An expression, or corruption, of the soul (again, in a hylomorphic sense).

"Of what substance is it?"

Form, information, is immaterial (but very real).

Again, what is “revealed” (revealed truth, revelation) is always represented as entering the world through intrusion, by imposition."

No, I can't agree. As Harry sez, 'these principles are universal and obvious'. Like a raging fire, they are. We're told otherwise, after bein' ground down and made crazy. 'They' would make Manchurian Candidates of us all.

"Like you I am uncertain what to conclude."

My uncertainty is centered on Evil. Is it a flaw, or is it is flaw made malign by someone or sumthin' 'outside' us?

In the first: we are broken from the start. In the second: we are whole and under attack.

-----

Harry,

"We will probably never know which camp he is in, and, indeed, he probably does not even know nor care himself(.)"

He seems caught between.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 2:56 am But in regard to the things I think about I perceive no alternative but a more fluid predicate system.

The biological and physical reality described by science is all there is. Oh, and we fell from somewhere, and could ascend somewhere (or could fall somewhere else).

This reality was designed. Oh, and the designer has existence only inside us designed beings.

Metaphysical truths are interpretive (and thus subjective). Oh, and they're also revealed (and thus objective).

As a waning religious-spiritual tradition, the ongoing loss of the Christian metaphysic is tragic, and we should study and recur to it. Oh, and, the oldest continuous religious-spiritual tradition in the world with its metaphysic should just be assimilated and die off already.

Yep, "fluid predicate system" is one way of putting it.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 3:12 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 2:56 am But in regard to the things I think about I perceive no alternative but a more fluid predicate system.

The biological and physical reality described by science is all there is.

Yep, and it's got a long way to go to comprehend the true nature of REAL_IT_Y - that there IS an intelligence at its fundamental construct. (beyond just our own minds )

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 3:12 am

Like I said: He seems caught between.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 3:19 am Like I said: He seems caught between.

Yes. That seems like a fair assessment.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 3:03 am My uncertainty is centered on Evil. Is it a flaw, or is it is flaw made malign by someone or sumthin' 'outside' us?

In the first: we are broken from the start. In the second: we are whole and under attack.

Though they have different imports for human nature, both options have the same ultimate import with respect to the reality of evil.

FWIW, the second makes more sense to me.