Philosophy Now Forum

I registered the other day, and this is only my second post.

I am interested in epistemology primarily, but also philosophy of 'religion' (I've put the word religion in inverted commas, because I regard it as such an unhelpful loaded term, that has more use in the service of the propaganda of the culture wars than in any mature intellectual discourse). I hope I can get involved in helpful discussions on this site.

Al (from UK)

Religion

And an old priest said, "Speak to us of Religion." And he said: Have I spoken this day of aught else? Is not religion all deeds and all reflection, And that which is neither deed nor reflection, but a wonder and a surprise ever springing in the soul, even while the hands hew the stone or tend the loom? Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupations? Who can spread his hours before him, saying, "This for God and this for myself; This for my soul, and this other for my body?" All your hours are wings that beat through space from self to self. He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked. The wind and the sun will tear no holes in his skin. And he who defines his conduct by ethics imprisons his song-bird in a cage. The freest song comes not through bars and wires. And he to whom worshipping is a window, to open but also to shut, has not yet visited the house of his soul whose windows are from dawn to dawn. Your daily life is your temple and your religion. Whenever you enter into it take with you your all. Take the plough and the forge and the mallet and the lute, The things you have fashioned in necessity or for delight. For in revery you cannot rise above your achievements nor fall lower than your failures. And take with you all men: For in adoration you cannot fly higher than their hopes nor humble yourself lower than their despair. And if you would know God be not therefore a solver of riddles. Rather look about you and you shall see Him playing with your children. And look into space; you shall see Him walking in the cloud, outstretching His arms in the lightning and descending in rain. You shall see Him smiling in flowers, then rising and waving His hands in trees.

Bernard wrote:Religion

And an old priest said, "Speak to us of Religion." And he said: Have I spoken this day of aught else? Is not religion all deeds and all reflection, And that which is neither deed nor reflection, but a wonder and a surprise ever springing in the soul, even while the hands hew the stone or tend the loom? Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupations? Who can spread his hours before him, saying, "This for God and this for myself; This for my soul, and this other for my body?" All your hours are wings that beat through space from self to self. He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked. The wind and the sun will tear no holes in his skin. And he who defines his conduct by ethics imprisons his song-bird in a cage. The freest song comes not through bars and wires. And he to whom worshipping is a window, to open but also to shut, has not yet visited the house of his soul whose windows are from dawn to dawn. Your daily life is your temple and your religion. Whenever you enter into it take with you your all. Take the plough and the forge and the mallet and the lute, The things you have fashioned in necessity or for delight. For in revery you cannot rise above your achievements nor fall lower than your failures. And take with you all men: For in adoration you cannot fly higher than their hopes nor humble yourself lower than their despair. And if you would know God be not therefore a solver of riddles. Rather look about you and you shall see Him playing with your children. And look into space; you shall see Him walking in the cloud, outstretching His arms in the lightning and descending in rain. You shall see Him smiling in flowers, then rising and waving His hands in trees.

My counseling effort using Gibran did not succees. viewtopic.php?f=20&t=9748&p=121076&hilit=gibran#p121076

Just take their money and do as they want you to do."

DO as they want you to do and then just take their money, isn't that how it should go.

Solicitors, barristers, don't always know best. The client knows the husband/wife and is probably better versed in which way to proceed in some aspects of the case.

My barrister was taken back, when I warned him, if he had something he did not want divulged, it would be exposed. He looked at me as if I was a fool. After five or ten minutes and discussing something else, he blurted out, Well, there was a matter with tax avoidance. Months later when we were in court, my lawyer brought to the court's attention my ex's tax avoidance. Bad move. Unfortunately for my barrister, his very own tax avoidance case was brought immediately to the attention of the court by my ex husband.

An apology was demanded and received. I warned him.

Hello Al
It’s interesting that you should express your interests as you do; knowledge and faith. Epistemology is ultimately about whether we can trust our senses to provide us with reliable information or we need to filter it by thinking. The advantage of studying epistemology is that whatever position someone takes, you will know the flaws in their argument. Ultimately, the only thing that cannot be challenged is, as Parmenides says, something exists. Everything else is fair game and as you will quickly discover, knowledge, or lack of it, is no barrier to having, and expressing, an opinion.

The position a person holds isn't necessarily an argument. It may simply be a truth.

Bernard wrote:The position a person holds isn't necessarily an argument.

It is if they choose to air it.

Bernard wrote:It may simply be a truth.

As this about epistemology, how would they know?

tillingborn wrote:

Bernard wrote:The position a person holds isn't necessarily an argument.

It is if they choose to air it.


A position is not an argument simply because its aired. It can be taken for an argument or for a block of cheese as well.

Bernard wrote:It may simply be a truth.

As this about epistemology, how would they know?

Because truths by nature are self evident, just like the Parmenidean "something exists".

Bernard wrote:Because truths by nature are self evident, just like the Parmenidean "something exists".

Well, there are mathematical truths (2+2=4 etc.) and analytic truths (all bachelors are unmarried). Kant tried to show that there are synthetic a priori truths, but I'm not convinced. What have you got?

Truths aren't things of the mind. Your mathematical truths are just facts. Is Kant merely talking of intuitive truths when talking of a priori synthetic? I'd say so. When we talk of rational or intuitive truths we are talking really about the knowledge of the mind being invested with the knowledge of the heart. It's only really the heart which is the realm of truths.

What are truths before the mind formulates them then? Moments of immediate knowledge? The spirit manifesting? It is legitimate to talk of the spirit in a philosophy forum. The greatest philosophical epoch ever dealt with it almost exclusively at times. I mean India 2500 to 3000 years ago.

Bernard wrote:Truths aren't things of the mind.

Wittgenstein opened the Tractatus with the words the world is all that is the case, it is the collection of facts, not of things, or something like that. So yes, whatever is true is true independently of our thinking about it, despite what some of the more loony interpretations of quantum mechanics imply. The problem we have in discovering these truths is that we have to do so using whatever physical attributes we have. Generally, I would suggest using your head rather than your heart in this endeavour.

Bernard wrote:What are truths before the mind formulates them then?

Like you say:

Bernard wrote:Truths aren't things of the mind.

Bernard wrote:The greatest philosophical epoch ever dealt with it almost exclusively at times. I mean India 2500 to 3000 years ago.

We all have our favourites, but I admit, Indian philosophy is not my strong point.

Wittgenstein opened the Tractatus with the words the world is all that is the case, it is the collection of facts, not of things, or something like that. So yes, whatever is true is true independently of our thinking about it, despite what some of the more loony interpretations of quantum mechanics imply. The problem we have in discovering these truths is that we have to do so using whatever physical attributes we have. Generally, I would suggest using your head rather than your heart in this endeavour.

Who chopped head from heart? Perception is assembled in the heart, why would I not refer from there primarily in any undertaking? You understand that what I mean of as heart is something more than just an organ. Like brain/mind There is also heart/heart.

Bernard wrote:Who chopped head from heart?

Good question (pithy answer: Thales). Personally, I think the search for knowledge is a waste of time, if you want an incontrovertible foundation for your belief system, look no further than Parmenides. Even Descartes overstated his case by claiming 'I think, therefore I am'. As Hintikka pointed out, all you know is that there is thought. We all believe according to our heart/heart, to me the challenge of philosophy is to think with our brain/mind.

tillingborn wrote:

Bernard wrote:Who chopped head from heart?

Good question (pithy answer: Thales). Personally, I think the search for knowledge is a waste of time, if you want an incontrovertible foundation for your belief system, look no further than Parmenides. Even Descartes overstated his case by claiming 'I think, therefore I am'. As Hintikka pointed out, all you know is that there is thought. We all believe according to our heart/heart, to me the challenge of philosophy is to think with our brain/mind.

Yeh, Thales et al certainly instigated a way of being rational that had the effect of divorcing internal knowledge from - let's call it - surface knowledge. The disenfranchisement from mythology proved very fruitful, though it was due in large part to being unable to assimilate the mythology of much older cultures to the East. This lack of will or ability to internalise and rely upon internal knowledge has produced an imitation culture, ie: the West. It's a culture that has developed surfaces to their maximum potential. The Roman Gods are the easiest example here. But the depths have remained very close by, and it wont take to much of a tip to return us there.

Descartes is only overstating within the context of Western philosophy, when placed within the context of older philosophies he is understating. For me philosophy is about wisdom, and wisdom ca be supplied via many activities beside thought. And I do see the heart as the primary source, ie; feeling that wells from our mysterious cores which is fractionally prior to sensory activity, and yet which guides and regulates our senses as a unitary whole, amplifying its own distinct and primary nature.

The biological heart reflects this dominance: it has a massive electro-magnetic field compared to the brain.