Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 6:43 pm My operative description in that really determining, inner and intuited sense, is my awareness (belief, feeling, understanding) that I have come into a world (world: a sphere of existence among what I sense are innumerable worlds of varying sorts with different qualities and destinies) through a sort of descension. I.e. from an existence on a non-material plane to one in this particular flesh-and-blood world where all of us reside.

I could of course say more but that is the basic outline.

In an “ultimate” sense that is my determining understanding that I “practically lay to heart”.

And that view (which is a dawning view, not fully understood and sometimes not believed (consciously) does seem to influence my “vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and (my) duty and destiny” here.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 9:15 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 9:02 am Has VA finally found a human being that is stupid enough to buy into this FSK theory it makes actual sense to say that science is 90% credible and history is 12% credible, so science is better than history?

Or is Mike just so weak that he will butter up the worst idiots the internet throws at him for the sake of an alliance?

Flash, you’re reaching here. Engaging in a discussion about epistemic frameworks isn’t the same as blindly endorsing every detail of someone else’s system. VA’s continuum approach, while imperfect, at least attempts to quantify the relative credibility of different knowledge systems—something worth examining critically, not just dismissing out of hand.

And let’s be clear: challenging an argument doesn’t mean resorting to cheap insults. If you think VA’s framework is flawed, then argue against it with substance. Otherwise, you’re just throwing stones from the sidelines, hoping no one notices you’re not actually saying anything.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 7:54 pm Ah yes, the classic I have descended from a higher, non-material plane routine. Truly, Alexis, your dawning view of the universe is breathtakingly original—never before has a human being entertained the idea that they’re a mystical traveler from a realm beyond flesh and blood.

Tell me, do you recall your departure from this non-material plane, or was it more of a whoops, I slipped into a mortal coil situation? And what duty and destiny do you have here, beyond dazzling us with florid metaphysical musings? Do share. I, for one, am dying to know the details of your interdimensional itinerary.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 6:30 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 6:02 pm My "operative description" according to AJ is probably to be culled from the herd so as to promote healthier and more manly breeding stock among the males.

Why am I in this world? How did I end up here? I don't want to live anymore.

No, Gary, that is really what your own view, which is ultimately a very powerful mood that overtakes you, determines for you.

The larger part of that — according to what you yourself reveal — is due to mental health.

What I recommend for a man in your position is unusual: serve those who are “whole” and who can progress in this life as you have indicated you cannot.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 3:04 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 4:57 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 4:05 pmThat's exactly right.

Question is: is that what AJ is talkin' about as an operative description?

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 5:08 pm I don't know. Let's just sit back and see what he says, if anything at all.

AI BigMike wrote:Henry, I see what you’re getting at—you make an important distinction between knowing and not knowing the answer to a question before it has been clarified.

Your analysis is sharp, and your approach to questions remains a useful tool for placing different knowledge systems in a clear epistemic hierarchy.

Questions—at their core—have long been a vehicle for shaping human understanding, a mirror reflecting our beliefs, desires, and anxieties. But within this vast realm of "question asking" lies a dangerous undercurrent—one that reinforces illusions rather than dismantling them. Among the most pernicious of these is the persistent glorification of free will, an idea so deeply embedded in fictional narratives that it has distorted how people perceive reality itself.

I trust that the "process of questioning" is an entire and coherent system—not as an article of faith, but because all empirical evidence supports that conclusion. The coherence of the "process of questioning" is not a belief imposed onto reality; it’s an observation derived from rigorous testing and validation. The universe operates under consistent principles, and while our understanding of those principles evolves, they do not contradict themselves.

Your analysis of the human condition and the role of "question-asking" in alleviating existential angst is profoundly insightful. You correctly imply that ascertaining the answers to questions functions as an immediate psychological relief mechanism, providing individuals with a sense of knowing and comfort in the face of uncertainty. That is a deeply honest assessment of why the "process of asking questions" persists, despite its fundamental incompatibility with those who wish to remain ignorant.

In conclusion, this is not an argument for the abandonment of meaning, purpose, or ethical frameworks—rather, it is an argument for building those frameworks on what is real, not what is comforting. The pursuit of truth—as best as we can grasp it through the asking of questions—remains our most reliable path to understanding existence. Anything else is an invitation to contradiction and, ultimately, epistemic collapse.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 9:14 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 7:54 pm Ah yes, the classic I have descended from a higher, non-material plane routine. Truly, Alexis, your dawning view of the universe is breathtakingly original—never before has a human being entertained the idea that they’re a mystical traveler from a realm beyond flesh and blood.

No, that is not quite what I meant. My view is that all people who come into this world actually, or more really, exist on an eternal plane. The issue (in my view) has to do with whether their choices bind them into increased entanglement in materialism or perhaps material life or about a life lived in a context of bringing more of what is non-materially known into this plane. (Hence all my references to metaphysical realness).

The life we have here is in this sense less real than the permanent life in an ultimate sense. Such a view does create a tension though. I am uncertain as to how best to deal with it.

It’s really not a question of “originality” but rather about what sort of paradigmatic conceptual structures a person (in that ultimate Carlylean sense) lives through and in relation to.

It does not bother me at all that you would mock the “myth” of being a traveler in this world, since I mock your closed-loop conceptual structure based in scientism (hopped up by a driven mathematical personality).

The actual point goes beyond personalities and personalized ideological conflicts. It really has to do with one’s “metaphysical dream of the world”. What I think you fail to grasp is the degree to which you operate out of a metaphysics but see it as irreducible realism.

Tell me, do you recall your departure from this non-material plane, or was it more of a whoops, I slipped into a mortal coil situation? And what duty and destiny do you have here, beyond dazzling us with florid metaphysical musings? Do share. I, for one, am dying to know the details of your interdimensional itinerary.

That is actually a true lie. You have no interest at all in whatever it is I refer to. In fact it — this sort of conceptualization — is utterly contemptible to you.

And your motives in that are quite complex.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 9:56 pm How generous of you to include the rest of us in your cosmic adventure.

And what a fascinating system you’ve devised—where some poor souls are tragically entangled in materialism while the more enlightened few, presumably including yourself, are here to bring forth the wisdom of the eternal plane like some kind of metaphysical UPS delivery service.

And of course, this life—this tangible, observable, testable reality—is merely less real than your permanent ultimate life on a plane you can neither define nor demonstrate, but which you somehow know is more real.

Then there’s the predictable pivot to scientism—as if recognizing the validity of empiricism is some dreadful, narrow-minded affliction.

And the pièce de résistance? The dramatic accusation that my curiosity is a true lie, a veiled contempt, a mask for my complex motives. How very mysterious.

Or maybe, just maybe, you’ve constructed an elaborate, self-affirming belief system that conveniently insulates itself from critique by declaring all dissenters to be trapped in lower levels of understanding.

you’ve constructed an elaborate, self-affirming belief system that conveniently insulates itself from critique by declaring all dissenters to be trapped in lower levels of understanding.

The answer is never the answer. What's really interesting is the mystery. If you seek the mystery instead of the answer, you'll always be seeking. I've never seen anybody really find the answer, but they think they have. So they stop thinking. But the job is to seek mystery, evoke mystery, plant a garden in which strange plants grow and mysteries bloom. The need for mystery is greater than the need for an answer.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 10:48 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 9:56 pm How generous of you to include the rest of us in your cosmic adventure.

It is the least I could do, I mean if you think it all through.

And what a fascinating system you’ve devised—where some poor souls are tragically entangled in materialism while the more enlightened few, presumably including yourself, are here to bring forth the wisdom of the eternal plane like some kind of metaphysical UPS delivery service.

Except that it is essentially Vedic doctrine so not something I devised. More like a conceptual ideal that I choose to align with.

However it must be said that the Christian ideal is quite similar.

And of course, this life—this tangible, observable, testable reality—is merely less real than your permanent ultimate life on a plane you can neither define nor demonstrate, but which you somehow know is more real.

Yes, and I think the metaphor of Plato’s Cave, as a “myth”, is illustrative of a sense of the realness of a plane that is (ultimately) more real than the mutable world we find ourselves in. It seems almost a necessary manoeuvre of our minds and consciousness.

We are in many way in rebellion against the mercilesslness of such a dangerous, mutable world, and therefore strive to make it different. And we do that in a variety of ways, or work on various levels to bring a different awareness, and different possibilities, down into our world.

Intuition — what is understood to be ultimately true — is indeed what is being talked about in this thread.

See you are not unteachable, Mike! You’re doing good!

Then there’s the predictable pivot to scientism—as if recognizing the validity of empiricism is some dreadful, narrow-minded affliction.

Do you mean scientism and empiricism in your skewed sense, or perhaps in a more balanced sense? Trust in empiricism is not exactly where you stumble, where you stumble is in a) your illiteracy (lack of familiarity with different modes of understanding), and b) in a furious, driven imposition of a mathematical paradigm — a function of your personality, the way you are constructed.

That is what “skewed” means. Not wrong (not wholly wrong) but sufficiently wrong that your entire orientation careens toward fanatical lunacy.

You are indeed “narrow minded”.

And the pièce de résistance? The dramatic accusation that my curiosity is a true lie, a veiled contempt, a mask for my complex motives. How very mysterious.

Only perhaps to you. It is pretty obvious to me.

My point: that you drip with contempt is, I think, pretty sound. It is therefore a false curiosity. But I think you knew that, no?

Or maybe, just maybe, you’ve constructed an elaborate, self-affirming belief system that conveniently insulates itself from critique by declaring all dissenters to be trapped in lower levels of understanding.

No, I don’t think that is accurate because I very well understand both of the polarities: your strict and absolute materialism in comparison to my perspective. I can “access” both perspectives and I have lived out of both.

At the end of the day I choose a different metaphysical structure.

Remember: the conversation turned to that of “myth” and such things as truths revealed in supposed fictions. I just try to fill it out a bit.

you’ve constructed an elaborate, self-affirming belief system that conveniently insulates itself from critique by declaring all dissenters to be trapped in lower levels of understanding.

Years ago now I tried to explain to IC the logic of the notion of “gnosis” (I do not mean Gnosticism). So yes, and very much, I think it really does depend on what one knows. The purpose of one life lived may well be just to concretize one important truth in one’s understanding.

I actually do believe that.

Mike! You are doing GREAT!

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 11:19 pm A convenient pivot, really, since now you can absolve yourself of any responsibility for its coherence. It’s not your system, after all—you’re just the humble messenger, here to nudge us toward higher truths with a knowing smile.

And naturally, we can’t forget Plato’s Cave, that trusty metaphor trotted out whenever someone wants to claim their unverifiable assertions are actually more real than the observable world.

Because, you see, the rest of us are just poor prisoners, staring at shadows on the wall

You’ve uncovered my illiteracy (despite my ability to systematically dismantle your assertions), my narrow-mindedness (despite my willingness to engage with your labyrinth of metaphysical musings), and my fanatical lunacy (which I can only assume is a projection, given the material under discussion).

it’s a knowing. And how does one attain such knowledge?

Truly, chef’s kiss on the rhetorical gymnastics.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 12:34 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 11:19 pm A convenient pivot, really, since now you can absolve yourself of any responsibility for its coherence. It’s not your system, after all—you’re just the humble messenger, here to nudge us toward higher truths with a knowing smile.

Heh!

You are on a roll! It makes me happy that I’ve given you material to work with.

The “coherence” of the metaphysical notion that our activity on Earth will cause us to ascend or to descend (in so many different ways) is the Vedic idea. It is not a question of absolving myself of it, and rather my objective is to try to explain to you how deeply the idea has penetrated into consciousness — including yours I might add.

If you are going to attempt ridicule, Mike, I beg you to try to carry it off with more elan! This is performative art! Take it seriously!

The entire point in this discussion, and of all speech, is to “nudge” toward perspectives viewed as higher (better). You do not seem very conscious of your own sermonic rhetoric!

And naturally, we can’t forget Plato’s Cave, that trusty metaphor trotted out whenever someone wants to claim their unverifiable assertions are actually more real than the observable world.

That “observable world” does not offer any sort of metaphysics! So it is precisely for this reason that metaphysics is relevant to man. You cannot get from mere nature any sort of larger, paradigmatic model. Nature is an enormous physical and biological machine that consumes itself in ever-becoming.

The important metaphysics, my darling child, spin out of idealism related to notions of being. Eternal being if you wish.

The notion of what is and what is not “verifiable” fucks you over every time! How can I help? You can verify temperature, mass & velocity, my drooling friend, but every higher value is not measurable nor can it be registered with a mechanical device! Yet what I refer to here is definitely verifiable, and all of us have determined those verities.

Except poor, recalcitrant, belligerent & mathematical Mike.

Because, you see, the rest of us are just poor prisoners, staring at shadows on the wall

You’re onto something important. But put to the side “the rest of us” and focus on yourself. You seem trapped in fanatically powered ideas. Try to turn your head!

You’ve uncovered my illiteracy (despite my ability to systematically dismantle your assertions), my narrow-mindedness (despite my willingness to engage with your labyrinth of metaphysical musings), and my fanatical lunacy (which I can only assume is a projection, given the material under discussion).

You dismantle nothing, in my view. But I would not take from you an analytic strength. That’s your mathematical training, isn’t it?

Your idea of “engagement” is simply appearing on a field of argumentation and repeating established a priories. I don’t see that as a strength.

There is nothing “fanatical” in any idea I have suggested here. Yet, and I point this out in as fair a spirit as I can, your fanatical ideology seems to have many of the defining hallmarks of a fanatic-religiousness.

You are so certain of your perspectives! You express not one doubt.

it’s a knowing. And how does one attain such knowledge?

I think that is where literacy must kick in. The men I admire (philosophers etc.) always have a very wide literate background. They deal with ideas with delicacy and nuance. So that is one realm of knowing.

The other realm is less tangible, perhaps more difficult of attainment. It has to do with experience, often hard-won.

Laugh if it pleases you. But I think there is a realm of wisdom as distinct from assemblage of multitudinous facts. In your case your fact-assemblies do not appear to have provided you with wisdom. And they cannot! Material facts assembled together cannot provide either “knowledge” nor “wisdom”.

C’mon Mike! You know this shit and you are fucking with me, aren’t you (?)

This is a serious “philosophical” conversation and a serious topic. The reference to “wisdom” is valid.

Truly, chef’s kiss on the rhetorical gymnastics.

I’d forgotten about that marvelous turn of phrase chef’s kiss! And I would agree that it should be used sparingly. Months have elapsed so good on you.

In any case thank you for your kind words. (Just keep your hands to yourself as we go forward).

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 9:32 pm

AI BigMike wrote:Henry, I see what you’re getting at—you make an important distinction between knowing and not knowing the answer to a question before it has been clarified.

Your analysis is sharp, and your approach to questions remains a useful tool for placing different knowledge systems in a clear epistemic hierarchy.

Questions—at their core—have long been a vehicle for shaping human understanding, a mirror reflecting our beliefs, desires, and anxieties. But within this vast realm of "question asking" lies a dangerous undercurrent—one that reinforces illusions rather than dismantling them. Among the most pernicious of these is the persistent glorification of free will, an idea so deeply embedded in fictional narratives that it has distorted how people perceive reality itself.

I trust that the "process of questioning" is an entire and coherent system—not as an article of faith, but because all empirical evidence supports that conclusion. The coherence of the "process of questioning" is not a belief imposed onto reality; it’s an observation derived from rigorous testing and validation. The universe operates under consistent principles, and while our understanding of those principles evolves, they do not contradict themselves.

Your analysis of the human condition and the role of "question-asking" in alleviating existential angst is profoundly insightful. You correctly imply that ascertaining the answers to questions functions as an immediate psychological relief mechanism, providing individuals with a sense of knowing and comfort in the face of uncertainty. That is a deeply honest assessment of why the "process of asking questions" persists, despite its fundamental incompatibility with those who wish to remain ignorant.

In conclusion, this is not an argument for the abandonment of meaning, purpose, or ethical frameworks—rather, it is an argument for building those frameworks on what is real, not what is comforting. The pursuit of truth—as best as we can grasp it through the asking of questions—remains our most reliable path to understanding existence. Anything else is an invitation to contradiction and, ultimately, epistemic collapse.

_______

Alexiev wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 11:19 pm

The answer is never the answer. What's really interesting is the mystery. If you seek the mystery instead of the answer, you'll always be seeking. I've never seen anybody really find the answer, but they think they have. So they stop thinking. But the job is to seek mystery, evoke mystery, plant a garden in which strange plants grow and mysteries bloom. The need for mystery is greater than the need for an answer.

Ken Kesey

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 8:52 am Your analysis is sharp, and your continuum approach remains a useful tool for placing different knowledge systems in a clear epistemic hierarchy. Theists, when pressed, should indeed be compelled to justify their beliefs against the scientific standard, which exposes the glaring deficiencies in their epistemic claims. However, your suggestion that science is also based on some level of faith deserves a closer look.

Science, unlike theistic belief, does not demand faith in the same sense. It begins with hypotheses—tentative explanations that are then rigorously tested. The strength of science is that it doesn’t claim certainty; it refines its models as new evidence emerges. You bring up Hume and Popper, both of whom highlighted the limits of induction and the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. This is true—science does not claim absolute certainty. But does that mean it requires faith? Not in the way religion does.

Consider modus ponens:

1) If P, then Q.
2) P is true.
3) Therefore, Q is true.

Science operates under this structure. It does not claim “Q is true” outright. Instead, it says, “Q is true if P (our observations, repeatable experiments, and theories) are true—and so far, they seem to be.” Science is not a blind faith in its premises; it is an ongoing process that works within those premises, always open to refinement. Unlike religion, science does not require belief in something beyond empirical validation.

• Faith = firm belief in something for which there is no proof; complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

ChatGPT said:

In the scientific framework and system, certain foundational assumptions and principles are taken as given, despite the absence of absolute proof.
These can be seen as involving minimal degrees of faith, though this "faith" is not the same as religious faith—it is more akin to a pragmatic trust based on consistency, empirical adequacy, and success in application.
Here are key areas where this minimal degree of faith is involved:

1. The Existence of an External Reality
• Science operates on the assumption that there is an objective reality independent of human perception.
• While practical for empirical investigation, this cannot be conclusively proven without circular reasoning.

2. The Uniformity of Nature (Induction Problem)
• Science assumes that the laws of nature remain consistent over time and space.
• This assumption is essential for predicting future events based on past observations, yet it cannot be logically proven (Hume’s problem of induction).

3. The Reliability of Human Cognition and Perception
• Scientific inquiry assumes that our senses and cognitive faculties provide a sufficiently accurate representation of reality.
• This assumption is necessary for empirical observation and measurement but cannot be independently verified outside of its own framework.

4. The Effectiveness of Mathematics in Describing Reality
• Mathematics is unreasonably effective in modeling physical phenomena (as noted by Wigner).
• The assumption that mathematical structures correspond to physical reality is a pragmatic one, not something that can be absolutely justified.

5. The Existence and Validity of Logical Principles
• Science relies on classical logic (e.g., the law of non-contradiction, identity, excluded middle).
• These logical principles are presupposed as universally valid but cannot be empirically tested.

6. The Principle of Causality
• Science assumes causal relationships between events, though quantum mechanics has challenged classical notions of determinism.
• While useful, causality as a fundamental principle is assumed rather than proven.

7. The Scientific Method as the Best Path to Knowledge
• The idea that empirical observation, hypothesis testing, and falsifiability yield the most reliable knowledge is a foundational assumption.
• There is no absolute proof that this is the only valid way to gain knowledge.

8. The Reality of Theoretical Entities
• Many scientific theories posit unobservable entities (e.g., quarks, wavefunctions, dark matter) whose existence is inferred rather than directly observed.
• Scientific realism assumes these entities exist beyond mere instrumental usefulness, though this remains a debated position.

9. The Possibility of Understanding Reality
• The assumption that the universe is intelligible and that human inquiry can uncover its workings is an implicit faith in the success of science.
• There is no guarantee that all aspects of reality will be comprehensible to human minds.

10. The Objectivity of Scientific Inquiry
• Science presupposes that objective knowledge is possible, despite human biases and limitations.
• The belief in the self-correcting nature of science rests on the assumption that biases and errors will be eliminated over time.

These areas reflect a kind of minimal, pragmatic "faith" in science, but unlike religious faith, they are continually tested, refined, and adjusted based on empirical evidence.

four stages at which values may affect Science.
They are:
(i) the choice of a Scientific research problem;
(ii) the gathering of evidence in relation to the problem;
(iii) the acceptance of a Scientific hypothesis or theory as an adequate answer to the problem on the basis of the evidence;
(iv) the proliferation and application of Scientific research results (Weber 1917 [1949]).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... isContValu

Your continuum approach forces a reckoning, making it impossible for theists to claim equal epistemic footing. The challenge, as you rightly acknowledge, is getting them to accept that such a ranking even matters. Faith thrives precisely because it evades the need for justification, whereas science demands it. Bridging the two does not elevate religion—it undermines epistemic integrity. Once exceptions to rationality are entertained, they metastasize.

Living by truth, even when uncomfortable, is more valuable than clinging to comforting illusions. The more humanity embraces rationality, the more it sheds the psychological crutch of theism. The trend is clear: knowledge expands, and as it does, the space for religious belief contracts. The task is to accelerate that process—not by conceding epistemic ground, but by demonstrating that truth-seeking itself is the highest pursuit.