Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 10:20 pm

DPMartin wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 7:39 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:05 pm

What is your reason for saying that?

apparently you don't have an answer for what i asked

Unless you can say what is your reason, your question is meaningless.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 10:42 pm

DPMartin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:18 pm what is the religion of reason? Just how powerful can self-justification be? How is it that one can believe in reason as their god, worshiped as the most admirable thing? Truly they see it as the provider of all they need to know.

I get the impression you think that placing faith in reason is not a good thing. If that is the case, why don't you just say so?

DPMartin wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:18 pm
Whether or not I like what some one believes is irrelevant.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:24 am

bobmax wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:10 am I think that reason can be considered a religion when it is understood as a determined thought.

And this is a misunderstanding, because reason is not limited to determined thought.

Determined thinking mirrors the manifold world.
That is, the division of reality into distinct parts.
This division is indispensable to be able to operate in the world, because it allows to determine it by analyzing the relationships between its parts.

However, when this determination becomes absolute truth then we have a religion.
That is, the distinction is considered "true", the multiple is the Truth.

But reason knows, even though it cannot express it through determined thought, that the multiple is not absolute truth, but is only a provisional interpretation of the world.

Reason perceives the One.
And the One can never be a religion, since for the determined thought the One coincides with the Nothing.

You seems to be attributing knowledge and belief to reason. Reason is not a thinking agent. It doesn't know things. It doesn't perceive things. There can be many definitions of reason, but I haven't heard of one that considers reason to be a kind of mind. Generally reasoning is some kind of process of assertions and justifications in some kind of verbal format: speaking, writing....

Some people believe that distinctions are provisional, others do not. (with people who have different beliefs regarding different things and other views combining or separate from those). People who reason don't all think that distinctions are all provisional.

What is a determined thought? (as opposed to other kinds of thought)

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:44 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:31 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:07 am And, heck, I wouldn't mind some examples, ones showing the difference between using reason/valuing it and making a religion out of it.

I do not think 'the point' has been 'making a religion out of reason'' but rather 'making a religion of reason, itself'.

In other words just having a faith and/or a belief in 'reason', itself, and especially so in one's OWN 'reason'.

Exactly like one having faith or belief in something, especially of one's own making up, one can also have this religious attitude of or to just about ANY thing. This phenomena can be seen just about everywhere in adult human behaviour and in adult thought and thinking. Some "scientists" have a faith or a belief in what some "others" say, or do, and so just accept and agree with what those ones say or said, based on nothing more than faith or belief alone. Which is more or less just what the 'religion' word means and refers to, EXACTLY.

So, some "scientists" are even MORE 'religious' than what the so-called "religious" are. That is; those so-called "scientist" worship and BELIEVE IN some "others" MORE than the "religious" worship and BELIEVE IN, in the things that they do, human or nonhuman alike.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:07 amI can imagine agreeing or disagreeing if there was some clear explanation/demonstration of what the characteristics are. Otherwise, yes, I think we are left with impressions in the fog of abstraction.

The word 'religion' just refers to or means the having of faith, belief, worship, and/or devotion in, of, or to some 'thing'. From this context, ANY adult human being can be 'religious' to, of, or in ANY thing', including 'reason', itself, and especially one's OWN 'reason'. Some have faith, belief and/or worship and are devout to some 'god', and especially their OWN 'god' (of choosing).

ANY one can CHOOSE absolutely ANY 'thing' to be 'religious' of or about, from the definition of 'religion' just provided. This, obviously, includes 'reason' itself.

So, ,the 'religion of reason' is just the EXACT SAME as the 'religion of ANY thing else's.

I am still curious about what DP considers to be the signs that show when something is the religion of reason.

what is the religion of reason? Just how powerful can self-justification be? How is it that one can believe in reason as their god, worshiped as the most admirable thing? Truly they see it as the provider of all they need to know.

Who is the 'they' DP refers to? What is it about them that leads to this label? And so, for me, I think it would give me a clearer understanding of DP's position if I knew the 'they' and then also have some examples of the signs that 'they' are doing this/believe this.

bobmax wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 8:56 pm You are right, reason is not an agent.

However, this consideration should make us reflect.
Is the reason then an information processing?
Or is it above all something else?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 7:04 am

bobmax wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 8:56 pm You are right, reason is not an agent.

However, this consideration should make us reflect.
Is the reason then an information processing?
Or is it above all something else?

an activity

bobmax wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 9:51 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 7:04 am

bobmax wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 8:56 pm You are right, reason is not an agent.

However, this consideration should make us reflect.
Is the reason then an information processing?
Or is it above all something else?

an activity

Yes, it is an activity.

But this observation can have two very different meanings.
Depending on whether for you reality is intrinsically divided rather than unitary.

Here the meaning of existence is at stake.
And existence is communication.

Is communication a manifestation of the multiple, which is the authentic reality?
Or is the multiple a creation of communication?

That is, are there really distinct entities that eventually communicate, or are those that appear to be distinct entities actually generated by the same communication?

Reason is the purest form of communication.
Is reason a simple mechanism for processing information that exists regardless of the reason itself?
Or is this information generated by the same reason?

In other words, is communication an epiphenomenon of multiple reality, or is communication the very existence that seeks the One?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:35 am I don't believe in the excluded middle. Yes, there are separate entities. Yes, there is unity.

bobmax wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:10 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:35 am I don't believe in the excluded middle. Yes, there are separate entities. Yes, there is unity.

But the One is not there, it just cannot be there.

Because being there is separate entities.

So my question wasn't between being there or not being there.

But between being or not being.

And there is no excluded middle here.
As well as between good and evil, between right and wrong, between true and false.

There is no gray here, only black or white.

And so is reason: yearning for the Truth.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:15 pm reason is not the only way to the truth, nor is it a yearing. It's a process, an activity. A set of cognitive tools. With varying definitions of what those tools are, how they should be prioritized and which are the best. It's a subset of 'thinking'. And while more restricted in its meaning, both words cover an incredibly wide range of activities.

I don't know what you mean by 'being there'.
I think there's a lot of grey in life. Some a true blend, some with bits of different things mixed but not purely blended.

bobmax wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:49 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:15 pm reason is not the only way to the truth, nor is it a yearing. It's a process, an activity. A set of cognitive tools. With varying definitions of what those tools are, how they should be prioritized and which are the best. It's a subset of 'thinking'. And while more restricted in its meaning, both words cover an incredibly wide range of activities.

I don't know what you mean by 'being there'.
I think there's a lot of grey in life. Some a true blend, some with bits of different things mixed but not purely blended.

Isn't it the same reason that chooses the best?
And reason on what grounds this choice, if not on itself?

Being there is the same multiple, which in its essence is the original subject-object split.

While being is what, being upstream of the split, allows it.

Being is the goal of every philosophy, of every spirituality.

Certainly there is gray in existence.
There can only be gray.

If there was white or black there would be the absolute!
While the absolute cannot be there: it would be its annihilation.

The Truth is not there, the Truth is.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 1:17 pm

bobmax wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:49 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:15 pm reason is not the only way to the truth, nor is it a yearing. It's a process, an activity. A set of cognitive tools. With varying definitions of what those tools are, how they should be prioritized and which are the best. It's a subset of 'thinking'. And while more restricted in its meaning, both words cover an incredibly wide range of activities.

I don't know what you mean by 'being there'.
I think there's a lot of grey in life. Some a true blend, some with bits of different things mixed but not purely blended.

Isn't it the same reason that chooses the best?
And reason on what grounds this choice, if not on itself?

Being there is the same multiple, which in its essence is the original subject-object split.

While being is what, being upstream of the split, allows it.

Being is the goal of every philosophy, of every spirituality.

Certainly there is gray in existence.
There can only be gray.

If there was white or black there would be the absolute!
While the absolute cannot be there: it would be its annihilation.

The Truth is not there, the Truth is.

Yes, but does The Truth exist as if the world is not chaotic, or does The Truth exist as man's aspiration and hope towards one of the virtues that transcend explanation and analysis?

bobmax wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:49 pm Isn't it the same reason that chooses the best?

And reason on what grounds this choice, if not on itself?

Being there is the same multiple, which in its essence is the original subject-object split.

While being is what, being upstream of the split, allows it.

Being is the goal of every philosophy, of every spirituality.