Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote: Well, he's very keen on his absolute truth,

"Keenness" has zero to do with whether or not it's logical.

Come on, Immanuel. You are blatantly keen on "absolute truth". You obviously have started with the premise that middle eastern people 2,000 years ago are the only ones who ever understood reality and thus their claims are "absolute truth". From there, you work backwards trying to prove that truth claim. However, you try to give the impression that you are operating in a methodical bottom-up way.

Further, you didn't address my main points about truth:

Truth is a philosophers' plaything, seemingly because so many people can't be bothered adding the necessary adjective "relative" in their heads every time they hear the word "truth".

Of course everything is relative. Maybe on some level reality is all one thing with no environment, but it remains relative in every other respect, and certainly in respect to anything humans do.

The point being, even if there is one "absolute truth" that all of reality is one thing with no outside relativities, so what?

Greta wrote:Well, he's very keen on his absolute truth, as perceived in the middle east 2,000 years ago.

He's basically a rationalist. Descartes created the modern template in the Discourse on Method (Well worth a read: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm ). What he wanted to do, was copy the style of Euclid and build an edifice of knowledge on a few axioms. So he doubted everything he could until he got down to doubting about doubting. In order to do that, he had to be a thing that could doubt, hence 'I think, therefore, I am.' Sound enough. Then he chucks in another axiom, 'God exists' and the whole thing goes pear shaped.
In my field, history and philosophy of science, the rationalists have all but given up, admitting that the best they have is IBE, inference to the best explanation, Peter Lipton's yer man for that. Or was. He died of Squash. The game.
Anyway, Mr Can is trying to do a Descartes. By getting some dope to accept his useless axioms, 'Stage 1' I think he calls it, he believes that he can demonstrate that stages 2 to whatever, follow logically.
I think some people have been duped as far as stage 3, where most realise what a load of bollocks it is.

uwot wrote:

Greta wrote:Well, he's very keen on his absolute truth, as perceived in the middle east 2,000 years ago.

He's basically a rationalist. Descartes created the modern template in the Discourse on Method (Well worth a read: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm ). What he wanted to do, was copy the style of Euclid and build an edifice of knowledge on a few axioms. So he doubted everything he could until he got down to doubting about doubting. In order to do that, he had to be a thing that could doubt, hence 'I think, therefore, I am.' Sound enough. Then he chucks in another axiom, 'God exists' and the whole thing goes pear shaped.

Tragically, while his ontological argument is said to be simple, I'll be damned if I can make head nor tail of it:

Version A:

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desc ... tological/

Perceiving something within an idea that is true? What if one's perceptions are unreliable? He just seems to be saying that his intuitions are true, without a shred of backup. Is it just me or was Descartes's above proof unhinged? (... hoping it's not just me).

Greta wrote:
1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Perceiving something within an idea that is true? What if one's perceptions are unreliable? He just seems to be saying that his intuitions are true, without a shred of backup. Is it just me or was Descartes's above proof unhinged? (... hoping it's not just me).

I think it is like having the idea of a (Euclidean) triangle; if you have that idea (distinctly) then you will perceive that the angles must add up to 180 degrees. It would be self-contradictory for you think of a triangle that didn't have that attribute. Similarly, it would be self-contradictory to have the idea of God without such a thing necessarily existing.

But there is also a bit of Platonism, with the idea that things like triangles which we come up with using pure reason are essential, they are what is really-real. In contrast with perception, which is of doubtful reliability in itself, and only deals with 'accidental' properties e.g. the physical approximations of ideal and basic forms. (You can't have a 'distinct' idea of physical things; any particular object you call a 'tree' will not be the same as your idea 'tree')

So your intuition can be known to be true because it is consistent; it can be distinctly perceived. And there is the extra twist that the fact humans can have these insights into the essential is itself a sign of the workings of God; we have been given this ability to see beyond the physical, accidental universe we live in.

That is roughly how I understand it; personally I think it is quite clever and rather pleasing. You don't have to agree with it to say that.

Londoner wrote:I think it is like having the idea of a (Euclidean) triangle; if you have that idea (distinctly) then you will perceive that the angles must add up to 180 degrees. It would be self-contradictory for you think of a triangle that didn't have that attribute. Similarly, it would be self-contradictory to have the idea of God without such a thing necessarily existing.

But there is also a bit of Platonism, with the idea that things like triangles which we come up with using pure reason are essential, they are what is really-real. In contrast with perception, which is of doubtful reliability in itself, and only deals with 'accidental' properties e.g. the physical approximations of ideal and basic forms. (You can't have a 'distinct' idea of physical things; any particular object you call a 'tree' will not be the same as your idea 'tree')

So your intuition can be known to be true because it is consistent; it can be distinctly perceived. And there is the extra twist that the fact humans can have these insights into the essential is itself a sign of the workings of God; we have been given this ability to see beyond the physical, accidental universe we live in.

That is roughly how I understand it; personally I think it is quite clever and rather pleasing. You don't have to agree with it to say that.

Thanks Londoner, very helpful. As you say, we can never truly imagine a real life object. The fact that we find the visualisation skills of a savant like Stephen Wiltshire so astonishing makes clear just how indistinct our usual visualisations are. Whenever I hear the idea of human insight being the workings of God I wonder where the dividing line may be between humans and other intelligent social animals. Given that mature dolphins and other great apes are assumed to be about as sophisticated as human children, God would seemingly not be present or awakened in children until a certain age, which doesn't work for me.

Greta wrote:You are blatantly keen on "absolute truth".

Sure. But a totally irrelevant observation. Whether or not I'm "keen" on it will not change the facts either way.

You obviously have started with the premise that middle eastern people 2,000 years ago are the only ones who ever understood reality and thus their claims are "absolute truth".

This is also a terrible argument. Ad hominem, in the first place, and then it amounts to, "If people have found something true for 2,000 years, it cannot be true." Really????

From there, you work backwards trying to prove that truth claim.

Feel free to show me where I did that. I believe you won't find it. Fallacy of presumption, then.

Further, you didn't address my main points about truth:

Truth is a philosophers' plaything, seemingly because so many people can't be bothered adding the necessary adjective "relative" in their heads every time they hear the word "truth".

That's because it's such a bad argument I honestly wouldn't expect it to be offered. For it amounts to,"They don't say 'relative,' therefore we must assume they mean it?" Really? That's what you want to say?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam, and untrue, of course; but even were it not, we would not know from the statement, "Some philosophers say..." that "Some philosophers are right about what they say..." follows.

Of course everything is relative.

Then you would have to realize that your "of course" is unjustifiable, since your statement is only relatively true. If follows you must hold it sometimes to be untrue. So there's no "of course" about it, no reason for anyone operating logically even to accept it; in fact, the only "of course" would go the other way.

Maybe on some level reality is all one thing with no environment, but it remains relative in every other respect, and certainly in respect to anything humans do.

Would you maintain that that claim is also true? Universally? Or is it only relative? So it's false at times? Then why expect anyone to believe or have reason to conclude that it must be right in this case?

You see, there's just no way out of the Relativist paradox: if truth is only ever relative, then it cannot be more that true in a certain limited set of situations, or true to some subjective perspectives, but false in all the others. There's just no other option.

Relativism is plain self-defeating.

Immanuel Can wrote: This is also a terrible argument. Ad hominem, in the first place, and then it amounts to, "If people have found something true for 2,000 years, it cannot be true." Really????

It can if there's a reason to think it true. In this instance, there is no good reason to think it true.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Maybe on some level reality is all one thing with no environment, but it remains relative in every other respect, and certainly in respect to anything humans do.

Would you maintain that that claim is also true? Universally? Or is it only relative? So it's false at times? Then why expect anyone to believe or have reason to conclude that it must be right in this case?

What Greta says is perfectly plausible, your response to it displays either lack of understanding or dishonesty.

Harbal wrote: It can if there's a reason to think it true. In this instance, there is no good reason to think it true.

You mean, "I know of no reason to think it true." And I'm sure you're probably right about that. But what of it?

Immanuel Can wrote: What Greta says is perfectly plausible, your response to it displays either lack of understanding or dishonesty.

Gratuitous and ad hominem. You need some evidence. So prove me wrong: show me how Relativism can be anything more than relatively true without thereby undermining Relativism.

Immanuel Can wrote: You mean, "I know of no reason to think it true." And I'm sure you're probably right about that. But what of it?

You misrepresented Greta's words and attributed a conclusion to her that she didn't come to, that's what of it.

Immanuel Can wrote: You need some evidence. So prove me wrong: show me how Relativism can be anything more than relatively true without thereby undermining Relativism.

No, you prove yourself right.

Harbal wrote:...attributed a conclusion to her that she didn't come to...

I didn't "attribute" anything to her. I pointed out a conclusion which one is rationally forced to, on condition that one is a logical person and believed the premise in question; namely, if one believes Relativism is true.

Immanuel Can wrote: You need some evidence. So prove me wrong: show me how Relativism can be anything more than relatively true without thereby undermining Relativism.

No, you prove yourself right.

I just did. Now it would be your turn to show that Relativism can still make sense on its own terms. Barring that, you're still being gratuitous.

And not a little "white knighty."

Immanuel Can wrote:I pointed out a conclusion which one is rationally forced to,

No you didn't, you simply misrepresented what she said.

Immanuel Can wrote: Now it would be your turn to show that Relativism can still make sense on its own terms.

It makes sense to me but I can't prove anything, just like the existence of God makes sense to you but can't prove it.

And not a little "white knighty."

I don't have a little white nighty, I'm a flannel nightgown sort of guy.

Harbal wrote:I don't have a little white nighty, I'm a flannel nightgown sort of guy.

You're a guy, huh, I've always had my doubts, and the flannel nightgown comment still leaves me wondering.

bobevenson wrote: You're a guy, huh, I've always had my doubts, and the flannel nightgown comment still leaves me wondering.

It's not like you to admit to not being sure about something, bob.

Harbal wrote:

bobevenson wrote: You're a guy, huh, I've always had my doubts, and the flannel nightgown comment still leaves me wondering.

It's not like you to admit to not being sure about something, bob.

Please, I didn't want to come right out with it, but I'm convinced you really do have a little white nighty!

bobevenson wrote: I'm convinced you really do have a little white nighty![/size][/b]

Yes, I'm still living in hope that I'll come across somebody suitable to put in it. What size are you, by the way, bob?