Not at all sure what this has to do with your answers though. We will just have to agree to disagree that they are adequate to the points I raise above.
Besides, as I have pointed out any number of times, I have looked out of many windows over the course of my life and have come to embrace any number of conflicting perspectives. I was once a Christian, a Unitarian, a conservative, an Objectivist, a Libertarian, a Marxist, a Trotskyist, an anarchist, a democratic socialist, a social democrat, a liberal, an existentialist, a deconstructionist. Now I describe myself as a nihilist.
But: next week, next month, next year?
How can I possibly know this? Again, in a world of contingency, chance and change, I might possibly have a new experience or new relationship…or come upon a new point of view etc. and describe myself as something else.
I simply point out that this is applicable to everyone else too. And that all of this is embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
That, in other words, “I” itself is merely an existential contraption subject change at any time. But especially with regard to our moral and political and “spiritual” values.
Of course, lots of folks don’t want to think of their own sense of self and their own value judgments in this way. And that is because when one does it’s then just a hop, step and a jump to my own “dasein dilemma”. And God forbid that this is a reasonable way to reflect on these relationships.
Unless, of course, I’m wrong. But then I don’t have any illusions about figuring that out. For example, in the context of “all there is”?
It all depends on your point of view. And the extent to which you are able or not able to communicate it to others with different points of view.
And what that entails is grappling with these relationships such that we are able to demonstrate some things as being true objectively for all and other things as more likely to be just subjective opinions.
I don’t think that you are open to any kind of perspective other than what you already have and feel comfortable with. I noticed the same thing in our objective morality discussion.
You bring up salvation and divine justice once again, even though I am only writing about detecting God and being able to communicate the experience to another person.
You raise points when they don’t seem to be applicable to the discussion.
I’m suggesting that to experience God may be like sailing a boat … and you give me a list of all the makes and models of cars that you have owned or driven.
I don’t believe that this disconnect can be bridged.
All I can do here is note how, over the course of my life, I apparently [u][b]was[/u][/b] open to new perspectives because I actually shifted my point of view and came to espouse them. How about you?
Well, if that is the extent to which you go about discussing God and religion, fine. But I started this thread in order to delve into God and religion as 1] they pertain to the lives that we live “down here” and 2] the manner in which religionists go about connecting the dots “in their head” between “down here” and “up there”.
And then, of course, the extent to which they are able to demonstrate that what they do believe “in their head” is true objectively.
Which of my points are not applicable to that?
The experience one has of sailing a boat involves the existence of an actual boat, right?
But: Does the experience one have of believing in God involve the existence of an actual God?
This is a classic example of a belief that originates in and then revolves almost entirely around “in my head”.
Lots of folks claim to have experiences like this. Some involving religion and God, some not involving them. And, no doubt, given the capacity of the human brain/mind to generate all manner of extraordinary sights and sounds – “states of consciouness” – I don’t doubt that “in their head” they do in fact experience them.
And then from these visions some will concoct all manner of extraordinary philosophical/spiritual/religious/mystical narratives.
And if they start from this and it does involve God, well, there is not likely to be a snowballs chance in hell that an atheist will ever manage to bring the discussion around to an exchange in which, by using the rules of logic or the tools of science, they can “reason” the believer away from God.
Instead, all an atheist can do is to acknowledge that maybe the believer did in fact experience this extraordinary “state of consciousness” and then try to shift the discussion instead in the direction of demonstrating the existence of God such that the “proof” does not revolve almost entirely around what they believe “in their head”.
Or [for the objectivists] around defining and deducing God into existence. And this, after all, is just another rendition of “in my head”.
And here is a classic example of a God that is defined and deduced into existence.
One can believe that, when all of the assumptions/premises here are collated and conflated, we come out with an argument that --logically? – demonstrates the existence of God.
A God, in other words.
And then those who do believe in a God, may or may not incorporate this argument into their belief in the God, my God.
But how “in the world” does this really get any of us closer to establishing the actual/factual existence of God?
This sort of thinking always nudges me in the direction of the paradox that is “free will”. Human autonomy: fact of fiction?
And here you can approach it from the perspective of either science or religion.
Some scientists insist that mind is just more matter and that all matter obeys the immutable laws of physics. Thus, it is only an illusion that I am choosing to type these words [or submit this post] of my own “free will”.
On the other hand, some religionists insists that God is omniscient. Therefore, there is nothing that I can do that is not already known by God. Including typing these words and submitting this post.
And so, given my own priorities with respect to philosphy – exploring the relationship between identity and value judgments – what are the implications if either the scientists or the religionists here are right?
One can’t help but wonder: Will there ever really be a way to resolve this such that “I” can claim at least some measure of autonomy?
How does one manage to wrap their mind around the existence of existence? That some are able to convince themselves it’s something that their own mind has in fact wrapped itself around has always been just one more indication [to me] of how easily a human mind can delude itself.
The accidental universe? The accidental God? The accidental reality? Come on, what are the odds that any single mere mortal going about the business of living his or her own infinitesimally tiny existence [in the vastness of “all there is”] can know this?!
Believing it, sure. That makes sense. At least given the manner in which human psychology seems predisposed.
This is why I have always seen my own frame of mind here as an anomoly. Though, sure, that doesn’t mean I’m right. I definitely have no illusions about that.
Psychologically, it relates to what Erich Fromm describes as the tendency of many in the modern world to seek an “escape from freedom”. Then the distinctions that can be made between “freedom to” and “freedom from”.
This has always been my aim in exposing what I construe to be “the psychology of objectivism”: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
God and Reason become that crucial foundation that the objectivist can attach his or her ego to in order that there be a mental, emotional and psychological foundation in a world [of contingency, chance and change] that, at times, can seem bursting at the seams with a vertiginous sense of complexity, confusion, ambiguity and uncertainty.
Now, sure, this may not in fact be true – but how is it unreasonable?
Words/language is not the ultimate goal. The important thing is that message they carry. You cannot judge the words by other words. Secondly, language cannot be perfect in any case. That is impossible.
Language is mere an expressive approximation of feelings, not the exact translation.
Take the case of Maia. No matter how intelligent or linguistic expert you may be, you cannot make her understand what any color means to you. Language works only when both parties have more or less the same experiences/knowledge, then the language helps them to compare their experiences.
In spite of my limitations of the English language, I am aware of that.
Yes. Secondly, the issue in hand is the later subject only. There is no point discussing the former one.
Barring one or two linguistic occasions aside, i have no problem in understanding your perspective so far. Agreeing/disagreeing is different issue.
Secondly, why are you assuming that we will never agree on any issue?
Forget about salvation or morality, there are many other things that connects humans and God, and affects day to day life of humans. You will see it when i put my theory forth.
imb, do not confuse yourself. It is philosophy that tries to make connections between in the head and out there in the world, not religions. Religions, in the strict sense, are much like science and focus mainly on the experimental part of the investigation of the existence. Then, they report their findings back to philosophy to derive conclusions.
What we see as religions today, are basically philosophical doctrines, founded on the empiricism of some scholars. Morality is basically not a religious doctrine, but a philosophical one.
If you look carefully to that picture again, it is consisted of one perpendicular stick (penis) and one horizontal oval structure (vagina). And, the Shivling also resembles the posture of sexual union also; perpendicular penis inserted from above into horizontal vagina lying below, exact imitation of the missionary posture of a couple having sex .
Sages used this to postulate the doctrine of 0 and that is why it is similar to the shape of vagina, since its inception and same is true for 1, which represents penis in mathematics, and with the union of these two, mathematics is derived. Let me also tell you that in Hindi and Sanskrit, 0 is also written as 0 and 1 is exactly how a sperm looks, a small round head above and a zigzag tail following it.
I am not talking about morality above. My only purpose was highlighting how religions affected and decided the course of the mankind.
No, imb. Actually, i have every right to convince others. As i said before, there was a time when i was as suspicious about myself as you are but there are no more mere deductions of the head now. To be more precise, i know the way how the existence of divine entities can be verified physically/scientifically and showed to others too, but for some reasons/circumstances, i have not made any effort in that direction. The time is not ripe yet for me but that moment would come eventually.
That is fine. But, you must understand that you are trying to establish that very benchmarks/morality indirectly, that you deny.
imb, you did not answer my simple question-
zinnat13 wrote:
If i ask you what your height is exactly, how would you measure it? Would you take a measuring tape and measure your height from it or will start questioning the authenticity of the tape itself?
I am asking how will you do that in your routine life? And, by which way you can reach to any conclusion?
imb, sometimes, more intellectuality brings more confusion, so do not use it where it is not required. Do not try to sew clothes from the sword, instead of needle, or you will the left with nothing but torn pieces of cloth.
There is nation called common sense and intellectuals should not feel shy of using it just because that the word common attached to it. Knowledgeable person must be aware of the fact that which level of intellectuality would be appropriate in which circumstances. That is what wisdom is and knowledge is lame without it.
Do not raise this issue here but leave for the other thread. Secondly, if you remember, I did not use any religious reasons for deciding sexual liberty in that thread. My only focus was practical social welfare, not salvation or nirvana.
Sorry imb, There is no such statistical snapshot that proves the existence of WTP. Tell me where it is and who formed it? All that is only in our heads. Furthermore, the whole of mathematics does not have any real existence either. It is merely an illusion created by us for standardization. Numbers do not exist in the nature.
You are diluting your benchmark of in the backyard here. You are admitting that WTP is philosophical creation, then how can it ever exist beyond our heads? Did the science found or any such thing like WTP during the dissections of humans?
You cannot give any such leniency to other philosophical doctrines than what you are not ready to give the God. That would not be fair.
It is both easy and simple too. It is easy because it is every simple. All you need to get your basics/ontology right and rest would automatically follow.
I would not try any such thing. I am a very simple person and would like to use simple language too.
The ontology of the God is actually much like the crude oil, the more you refine/deduct it, the better product it would give.
There is no need for me to take any leap. Moral doctrines can be easily established and explained purely by social implications without provoking the issues such as God’s will/salvation. It is merely the incompetence of later religious scholars that gives this impression that morality needs God’s verdict on every issue.
I gave you two very prominent examples above of Gandhi and Mother Teresa. Gandhi is considered the father of the nation in India, which represents almost 1/6 th of the world population. What else example do you want? And, people really follow him. He is still the biggest icon and most influential figure in India.
He said very simple things like simple living, speaking truth, cleanness, education , removing poverty, and non-violence but he never said that we should do all this because any God said that. He said that these things are necessary because it will improve the live of the people. You can read about him if you do not believe me.
You are confused here just because you are using sward when a needle is sufficient. The concept of the judgment day is entirely different issue. Religions combined the two for the simple reason that in that time, neither modern means of communication were available nor everyone was not capable of understanding those. So, they embedded morality directly with the God’s will, though most of the morality has nothing to do with the God.
There is no gap whatsoever. The only thing is that you are avoiding the answer.
imb, do not try to avoid the question that asked.
I gave you an example and asked a simple question based on that only but you are bringing homosexuality and gun control into it, instead of answering the first one. Both these can also be answered from the social perspective only but we cannot discuss every social issue separately. That is why i put forth an imaginary situation to show you that the concept of the God is not necessary to answer all morality.
I would ask the same question again. Which city would you prefer to live and why? I am expecting a straight answer this time.
I did not ask that. I am not interested in what some people think about Jesus.
I am asking why he is the only one in question but other religious figures are not! I am looking for the intention of the people claiming his non-existence, not their findings.
Why the existence of Buddha, Moses and Muhammad are not questioned but only that of Jesus? That puts the integrity of the investigators into suspicion. If they were true historians, why they did not investigate the existence of other religious figures so rigorously?
That is precisely your mistake. You are getting the priorities wrong. You cannot judge anything completely unless you do not understand/deduct it completely, in the first place.
And, that is precisely why ancient Greek philosophers started philosophy from know thyself, not know what is out there.
Indian Sages followed the same routine even before Greeks. They first try to understand what exactly humans are, and, in the process, they found the God. Neither God nor even the reality/existence was not their first aim. Most of the intellectuals do not pay attention to this subtle difference and thus confuse themselves.
[b]The first question that should be asked is who exactly wants to know (humans). The second question that should be followed how one can know ( Mind). Then, lastly the focus should be given to what is out there to be known (reality/existence).
And, the beauty of this line of questioning is that only the first question gives all the answers[/b].If one can understand only himself completely, there would not be any need to know anything else whatsoever as it covers the whole of the knowledge that existed in this cosmos (omniscience). It does not seem to be true on the face value but it is.
imb, there cannot be any instant of direct formula as far as pure intellectual investigation is concerned. You have to go step by step. You have to cross primary before entering into highschool, and highschool before graduation.
But, for that, your mind has to accept that it seems likely that there is a God. Otherwise, all your effort in that dirction would go in vain.
That is precisely i am trying to do but you want to jump the gun.
Now, that is confusing and problematic too.
I asked you a simple question-
But, you chose to write some lines having no clear answer. A simple yes or no would be enough, or if you are not sure either way, do not hesitate and say that clearly. Can there be any third answer?
Apart of the points that we discussed in this thread, I want to draw your attention to a very famous analogy regarding objectivism/relativism.
You relativism is reminding me a very old doctrine or Jain religion; Anekantavada, which literally means Pluarism or Non-Absolutism.
For me, the most important thing about words and language is the extent to which we are able to take them “out of our heads” and connect them [substantively, objectively] to the world that we live in. The words “Mary had an abortion” [when in fact she did] and the words, “Mary’s abortion was immoral”, for example. The words, “I believe in God” and the words, “You should believe in God too.”
No, language can also be very precise as well. “John is a bachelor”. Well, he either is or he is not. On the other hand, it is words like “God” that tend to express approximate feelings: a desire, a yearning that a God, the God, my God is “out there” or “up there” somewhere.
Again, that is rooted in the objective reality of human biology. It would be like a woman trying to explain to a man what it is like to be pregnant or to give birth or to have an abortion.
Instead, God and religion tend to revolve more around reactions like these: “Why am I blind? It’s not fair. It’s not just. What is the reason?”
And that is when the Gods are often invoked: “God has a reason for everything. Your blindness fits into God’s Will, but not in a way that we mere mortals can fathom.”
And then if they live their life being faithful to God they will achieve immortality and salvation. And that is when everything becomes clear.
My point is there are issues in which we can only exchange subjective points of view. Here those issues revolve around conflicting value judgments, religion and God. We can both agree that I do not believe in God. Here and now. But can you convince me that your own belief in God is predicated on more than just what you happen to believe [here and now] is true about Him “in your head”?
You have noted this before. The manner in which you make this assumption that it is I who am confused. Which [to me] is just to suggest that I would not be confused if I were able to think about these things as you do. But: Perhaps it is you who are confused.
This is entirely too abstract though. It is only when philosophers and scientists and religionists start connecting the dots between what they believe is true “in their heads” and what can then be confirmed as in fact true “out in the world” of human interactions that my own interest is piqued. And, in particular, interactions that come into conflict over value judgments. As with abortion and homosexuality.
Do you really believe this? Morality and Sin would seem to be the very foundation of most actual religions “out in the world”. And then both are intimately intertwined with immortality and salvation. Or are those who believe this confused too?
Sure, you have every right to try to convince others that your conclusions have merit. But I still don’t see how your point of view here is anything other than what you have deduced [reasoned] to be true “in your head”. That you are convinced that you “know the way” I don’t doubt. What I wait patiently for is an argument that might convince me in turn.
I say this:
You respond:
And all I can think is: “How is this connected?”
In your head it might all be crystal clear…but in my own I truly am confused. What does this [and common sense] have to do with the conflicting value judgments that actual flesh and blood human beings endure? And how is that then related to the part about after we are dead and gone?
[u][b]This is the whole point of God and religion to most folks[/u][/b].
And this is the case [from my perspective] regarding much of this exchange. I make particular points and you respond to them. But I do not see any substantive connection between them. It is as though we are having two different discussions altogether. But then that has often been my experience with objectivists.
I suppose what I am trying to say is analogous to this: Where’s the beef?
I agree: God is not necessary in order for mere mortals to establish rules of behavior “down here”. But God is surely necessary if mere mortals wish to connect that crucial dot between the behaviors they choose “down here” and attaining immortality and salvation “up there”. And for those Christians who do not approach this “scholastically” that was, is and almost certainly always will be, the bottom line.
Again, one is said to be “confused” here when they do not share your own assumptions about these relationships. As though religious scholars themselves must be wrong if they do not share your own narrative here. Are you suggesting this?
This is precisely the sort of thing I would expect from James though. The gap between my answers and his. Once I come to agree with his answers, of course, the gap disappears. It never once occurs to him that with respect to these relationships it might be him who is confused.
I can only point out again that while you may feel this is an adequate response to the points I raised, I do not.
And any particular city that any particular individual will prefer to live in will revolve around how she has come to think about answering a question such as this [u]from the perspective of dasein[/u]. And, as dasein, she will prefer the city that most closely embodies, existentially, her own set of values. And that, to me, would seem to be “common sense”.
But here you sound just like James again. I am making the mistake because I do not share his priorities. As though that gets me even an inch closer to understanding the manner in which he speaks of the Real God! Let alone him demonstrating [beyond what he believes is true about God “in his head”] that this God actually does exist.
And then I begin to wonder: is this exchange just part and parcel of a “pure intellectual investigation” of God for you?
Okay, for the sake of argument, suppose you are not successful in taking me in this direction. Suppose I die still convinced that God is just basically the mother of all psychological defense mechanism. Given the manner in which you understand God now, what do you imagine my fate will be?
And then more of this:
And I answered your question. I answered it to the best of my ability. But it wasn’t the answer you wanted [or would have given yourself] and so, therefore, it was “problematic and confusing”.
But what is this but more abstract speculation in which the argument is said to be true if and only if you agree with all of the assumptions that are made in the argument itself. How is the “logic” here not circular?
And how [substantively/substantially] are these assumptions related to conflicting value judgements, to the manner in which we come to acquire a “sense of self”, to the manner in which mere mortals [in the course of living their lives] are inundated with conflicting goods?
And then: how is all of that related to the existence of a God, the God, your God?
In other words, how is it not but one more human perspective, the truth of which being embedded largely in the head of those who believe it? How can it [instead] be demonstrated that all rational people “out in the world” should [must] believe it too?
How in the world is atheism a “solution” to anything? What does that even mean?
There have been folks down through the ages who claimed a belief in God. And there have been folks down through the ages who asked them to substantiate His existence.
And believers have tried. They defined God into existence. They deduced God into existence. They read from their Bibles. They pointed to men and women centuries ago who claimed that God existed.
Or they insisted that their belief is a matter of faith.
And, given that all men are mortal, who would argue that there isn’t a “need” for God if there is to be any hope at all of attaining immortality?
But how does this get us any closer to an argument [or an accummulation of evidence] that would lead a rational man or woman to conclude that, yes, in fact, a God, the God, does exist?
Though it does seem reasonable [to me] to imagine a belief in God comforts and consoles folks emotionally and psychologically. And that this might somehow be related.
This is the sort of vague, indefinite approach to “God” that seems to work for some. It basically allows for any behavior in the here and now because, after all, any particular man or woman “here and now” may link a “spiritual” frame of mind to, well, any particular behavior.
And then, as for the “afterlife”, one has faith that it will take care of itself. In other words, however it is that there is a “spiritual” link between God and the here and now that same link is then applicable after we are dead and gone.
In this way, one does not have to commit to any particular scripture, any particular set of moral and political values or any particular rendition of God. It’s just something that one feels more “in the heart” than “in the head”.
And then, existentially, this either happens to you [as dasein] or it does not. And, hopefully, if it does, you can sustain this “spiritual feeling” all the way to the grave.
But what I always come back to then is this: what happens when, out in the world of human interaction, two “spiritual” folks come into contact with two very, very different sets of moral and political values.
Aren’t they then just basically like all the rest of us? To wit: Daseins confronting conflicting goods in a world ever in the grip of political economy.
That is not the purpose of the language and we do not use it that way either. We do not need our invented formal languages to connect what is in our heads with what is out there in the world. There is something inbuilt as an a priori in the mind of all living entities, what creates that connection which you mentioned.
Our invented languages do not have any purpose whatsoever other than communicating with others entities, not ourselves.
Not at all. Language cannot be ever precise, no matter how simple it is or how simple issue is dealt by it. The same is with the mathematics too. There will be some degree or approximation always. The degree of the preciseness or the approximation depends not on the language but the experiences/knowledge/perceptions of the parties involved in it.
The reason of this phenomenon is that languages do not exist in the reality or out there but only in our heads, and as every head has some differences from the other one, thus their interpretation of the same words bound to be different, no matter how miniscule it may be.
For example, John is a bachelor does not tell the complete story but only a part of it. In normal present understanding of the term, it only confirms that he has not married yet, nothing else. Like, it does not tell whether he is competent of leading a successful married life or not. In the same way, no matter how much detailed language you provide to a particular subject in order to enable any other person to grasp your intention, something will always be left behind. Total transmission of the intentions is impossible.
Yes, that is exactly what i was telling you above. And, it does not happen in the case of biology only but all. The more difference would be between the experiences of two parties, the more different their understanding would be of the same set of language.
That is true, because being an omniscient, God is aware of every subjective understanding/knowledge but we cannot. The definition of omniscience enables God to be aware of every reasoning or answer to all questions.
Why are you presuming that i will not able to do that? That may or may not happen.
I am not making any assumption here. You, like most other intellectuals, are unaware of the basics, real purpose and methodology of the religions. Religions are the most misunderstood concepts nowdays.
There is nothing abstract in what i said. Connecting the dots is not the job of religions but philosophy.
It is not a matter of belief for me anymore. I rather know that is a reality. That is why said that most of the modern intellectual populace is confused about the basics of the religions.
Philosophy is the mother of knowledge and religions and science are its subsets, which take care of empirical investigations of different forms of matter; science is for physical matter and religions are for metaphysical matter. Both of science and religions have to report their findings back to philosophy in order to draw conclusions. That is how it worked in the past when religions originated.
Morality is not religious doctrine but a philosophical one, though based on the religious investigations. As person can be both scientist and philosopher, in the same way, a person can be religious and philosopher as well; still both are two different streams of knowledge.
Imb, i do not make confirmative statements unless i am not 100% sure of anything. As i said before, it is no more the matter of in my head. I can show it physically too, precisely in the way which science believes but that moment has not come for me yet.
I am in the process of writing a book in this issue, in which i will talk about hard physical or scientific evidences too, but not before that. People would not take anything seriously. So, till then, i will restrict myself to philosophy only to prove my case.
That is precisely the problem that you chose to question me instead of giving answer to what i asked. Had you given the answer, i would have shown you how it was pertinent with the issue in hand.
imb, please do not forget that it me who is trying to prove you something, not the other way around. So, you have to move in which way would lead you. If you will refuse to come along, how can i ever enable you to reach there where i want?
Yes, you have every right to question the findings and conclusions that i present, but not the methodology.
If you are serious about the discussion, you have to follow this. If this discussion is about ego (not conceding for anything), then it is different issue.
You may be confused because you do not know where i am leading the argument.
If you live in the desert throughout your life, and someone tells you that show falls from the sky in the hills, you may not believe him and you have every right to do that. But, when that person says that you have to come along to him to the hills to see whether it is true or not, you should ask him that he must show snowfall to you right there in the desert, otherwise you would not believe him. Is that a logical thing to do?
But, that is precisely what you try to do now and then. I am asking you some questions not because i want to score any points over you, but that is the only way which you can follow what my argument is. But, like that person of desert analogy, instead of following the way, you start questioning my question itself. You are insisting that one must show snowfall to you right there in the desert, you would not go to the hill with him anyway.
imb, do not try to make a presumption on such issues, which are not familiar to you. You cannot dictate the course of my argument. Yes, you can question its validity, which i will happily answer at each stage but you have to come along with me for that.
Once again, remember that the burden of proof is on me here, not you. So, please restrict your questioning to the validity of the argument, not its course. I hope that i have myself clear enough.
The only thing that required for up there is faith, nothing else. Most of the rest of the morality is meant for down here.
Yes, most of the modern religious scholars are confused nowdays. Because, they are not true scholars. Religions have been lost the capacity of producing true scholars anymore. All have borrowed knowledge now, not earned. And, that is precisely the reason of the present pathetic conditions of the religions.
Do not twist the truth. The gap is because you not answering the simple questions that i asked. I am not saying that you should answer supporting my perspective. Use your own perspective but do not avoid the answer.
Again, you are presuming that your answer might support my perception thus you are avoiding.
I asked you that which city do you prefer? Use your common sense or relative sense and answer from your perspective. Is that is so difficult thing to decide that you cannot choose A or B simply?
Look carefully imb, you did not take much time to form an opinion here about me as you repeated it two times in one answer. Now, may i ask that, with this little interaction of this thread so far, what makes you so sure that i am sounding like James? Is that the behavior of an objectivist or a relativist?
But, when I ask you very simple questions, which may be answered in merely in one or two words, you chose to give such very lengthy and vague answers that no one can blame you for choosing a side. Why?
Secondly, as far as James is concerned, though we come from two entirely different background and culture, and our methodology/ontology of deriving conclusions is also entirely different, yet we agree more than disagree. That sometimes surprises me too.
Too many presumptions. You are certainly wrong, not because you are against my perception but just because logic says so.
Can you ever judge anything which deducting/analyzing in completely in the first place?
Can you ever tell what a computer can do from its appearance/face value, unless you are not aware of its hardware and software?
Can you show me how i am wrong?
Certainly. Why do you doubt? Just because, i am not following the line that you anticipated!
You faith will not make any difference to your fate ultimately. You will end up precisely where you are suppose to be, no matter what you believe or disbelieve. But yes, that can make a difference to the journey to this ending up.
I am expecting nothing but a straightforward answer which could be a simple yes, no or i am not sure. I would not have problem with any of these three but i certainly have a problem with such answer from which i cannot draw anything clear to go ahead.
imb, i am not expecting you to answer what i want from you. But, you are trying to presume what answer i expect from you and i order to avoid that to happen, you are using vague language. But, believe me, there is no such intention from my side. All i want from you is just to come clean or various issues, so that i can understand you and move accordingly.
I want to have this discussion in such manner so that you can understand clearly what i am saying. And for that, you have to be open and honest with me. Remember, we are not arguing but discussing only.
All answers are in this parable.
That parable establishes two things. The first one is that existence of many viewpoints does not mean that there cannot an objective version. Secondly, it says that one has to open his eyes (omniscience) to get the objective picture.
Yes, that is certainly one way to avoid responding to the points I raised with you above: by making me the point instead.
But, yes, I do make judgments here. After all, it’s not like any of us can really avoid this, right? We see these relationships in a particular way. Others see them in very different ways. So, sure, we react to that. Sometimes in very different moods.
Otherwise, we would have to add “you’re right from your side and I’m right from mine” after virtually everything we post.
On the other hand, as I have explained elsewhere, I am someone who truly enjoys “tussling” intellectually.
Here is how I once encompassed it at ILP:
[b]What I am is a polemist. At least from time to time.
What does this mean? It means that occasionally I enjoy provocative exchanges. A provocative exchange is one in which folks take opposite sides on an issue and aggressively pursue their own point of view. A polemicist might employ such devices as red herrings, irony, dissembling, sarcasm, needling, pokes and prods, intellectual cul de sacs, satire.
But it’s never meant to be personal. It’s just a way to ratchet up a discussion and make it more invigorating, intriguing, stimulating.
When the best minds are goaded they are often driven in turn to make their point all the more forcefully. It’s like both of you are down in the arena using words for swords.
From my experience these are almost always the most interesting exchanges. As long as they are understood to be just exchanges of polemics.
The paradox is this: the more you seem to be disrepectful of someone’s intelligence the more you actually respect it instead. Otherwise why pursue the exchange at all?
But few folks really appreciate this sort of intellectual jousting. It’s a lost art to say the least. Gone are the early days of the internet when I could engage in epic battles with Objectivists, Marxists, Kantians, Platonists and the like. [/b]
Indeed, in trying to invoke an exchange of polemics with mr reasonable recently, he actually went so far as to turn me in to the authorities. It got me two warnings.
In fact, I have been banned from various philosophy forums precisely for engaging in polemics. Only they called it “trolling”. The Philosophy Forums, for example. I guess the powers that be just didn’t “get” me. Either that or they didn’t like the points I kept raising.
Meaning that [perhaps] we should not leave it at that at all? Anyway, the dilemma embedded in dasein [as I see it above] is there for you [or any other moral objectivist] to deconstruct. Both philosophically and for all practical purposes.
And I can only stress again how a part of me yearns to bump into someone who actually can. You know, make it go away.
Trust me: It can be a truly [u][b]grim[/u][/b] manner in which to view these things.
Again, you assert this. As though to suggest that how you think about the use of language reflects the way any rational man or woman ought to think about it. As though the manner in which I think about it is somehow “wrong” because it is not the way that you think about it. Which is to say that [in my view] you reduce the extraordinary complexity of language [as it is actually used “out in the world”] down to your own point view. As though it were something analogous to mathematics or the laws of physics.
For me, however, the language that any particular individual uses “out in the world with others” can either express something that is true for all of us, or it is embedded [at least in part] in the subjective interpretation of any particular thing or relationship. And that certainly seems reasonable with respect to God and religion. It is the difference between saying “I am a Christian” – when in fact you are – and “every rational man and woman must be a Christian” – which is just your own subjective point of view.
Now, you may argue that language can be precise with respect to both, but that merely emphasizes the manner in which we think about this relationship differently. One either is or is not a Christian. But how does one go about demonstrating objectively that all rational men and women must be?
True, “John is a bachelor” is bereft of context. But if John is a bachelor that is an objective fact. But suppose someone argues that, in being a bachelor, John is being immoral…or is not living in accordence with the will of [any particular] God? How is that established as in fact true objectively?
This is the distinction that I always make regarding the use of words out in the world.
Now I am confused again. With respect to the biology of pregnancy and abortion, one truth fits all. It is what it is. It’s not just a matter of one’s personal opinion. But it is precisely the contradictory perspectives regarding the morality of abortion [rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy] that [to me] renders deontological ethics impotent. In other words, “for all practical purposes”.
Or so it seems to me unless and until someone demonstrates to me that this is not a rational manner in which think about it.
As I have noted, that is not the presumption I make at all. All I can attest to is that you have not managed to convince me that you can. I would never argue that the objective truth regarding the morality of abortion does not exist. And it may well be embedded in the existence of a particular God. But I do not believe in God. And I believe morality is embedded instead in the dilemma that seems [to me] inherent in dasein and conflicting goods.
So, I can then assume that when you tell me that I am “confused” or “mistaken”, you are expressing only a personal opinion derived from the assumptions [premises] you have accummulated with respect to these relsationships? You are acknowledging that it may well be you who are confused and mistaken?
Okay, we can leave it that then.
But sooner or later a religion either brings its theological assumptions [its abstract concepts/constructs] down to earth – pertaining to conflicting value judgments precipitating conflicting begaviors – or it does not. And it then links “down here” and “up there” – pertaining to immortality and salvation – or it does not.
If it does not then [to me] it becomes basically another academic exercise entangled abstractly in a scholastic pursuit of a particular set of priori deductions and definitions.
Which in all honesty I am not nearly as much interested in.
As for the distinction made between religion and science on the one hand and philosophy on the other, my argument is that the tools of philosophy are of limited use with respect to dasein and conflicting goods. Reason and logic and epistemology can only penetrate so far here. For example, if we are faced with the dilemma of living in a world where no babies are aborted then that means living in a world where some women will be forced to give birth against their will. What then can the tools of philosophy do to make these conflicting goods go away? And how can they obviate the fact that individual perspectives on the morality of abortion are rooted in dasein? And in the historical reality of political economy – with respect to how political power will play a role with regard to enforcing rules of behavior?
Two points.
I suspect that there are other scholars out there who view these relationships different from you. And I supsect that they too would argue that they are 100% certain of the asumptions they use to derive their conclusions.
But, so much more to the point [mine], there are folks “out in the world that we live in” who hold entirely different beliefs about entirely different Gods…and share entirely different value judgments regarding any number of human behaviors. And, based on my many years of experience as a political activist, I can assure you that lots and lots and lots of them claimed to be 100% certain about their own moral and political agendas. And their own religious convictions. That, in fact, is the world we live it. It is bursting at the seams with conflict.
How then are you not just one more person who has, is or will write a book examining and then delineating these relationships as they [allegedly] are said to really be?
And then, basically, you are telling me that, in regards to this exhange, the “hard physical or scientific” evidence will not be forthcoming until the book comes out. Instead, you wish to focus purely on philosophical issues. But how does that not just limit me to reacting to your definitions and deductions? Things you believe “in your head” to be true because your conclusions are derived from your assumptions/premises – and not derived from any substantiave/substantial empirical evidence?
Perhaps then we should just put this exchange on hold until you are willing and able to integrate your philosophical speculations into the world of conflicting value judgments – judgments that are in turn linked to our post-mortem fate.
Here though [again for me] this exchange with you is not all that different from the exchanges I have had with James.
I do answer your questions. I do answer them to the best of my ability. But [apparently] they are not the answers you want [or would have given yourself] and so, therefore, I am avoiding the questions.
However, to me, this is the difference between asking a medical doctor how she performs an abortion [and her giving you an answer that is true 100%] and asking an ethicist how she is 100% certain that the abortion is either moral or immoral. Or asking someone if he is 100% certain that he believes in the Christian God…and asking him if he is 100% certain that he can prove the actual existence of this God.
A “methodolgy” for me is relevant to the extent that I can at least imagine its existential use and exchange value with respect to actual human interactions. Interactions that revolve around identity, values and political/economic power. That is simply how I think about this relationship between words and worlds. And to the extent a “serious philosopher” keeps putting that relationship on hold is the extent to which I begin to wonder wonder if he or she has any accummulating evidence to close the gap between theory and practice.
You make these distinctions but I truly do not understand the point. The desert does exist. The hills do exist. There is either snow falling in the hills or there is not. I would never insist that someone prove to me that snow does fall in the hills before going with with her to find out myself.
And basically what you seem to be doing here is telling me that objective morality does exist. And [somehow] it is connected to the existence of God. But you cannot now take me to this God able to confirm the existence of objective morality. Instead, we have to stay right here while you explain to me the philosophical “methodolgy” that must be grappled with and then wholly encompassed before that journey begins.
And then I ask myself: How is that really different from James insisting that he will not discuss the objective morality of Mary and John and their dead baby until I up into the stratosphere of abstraction with him and agree with his definitions and deductions pertaining to RM/AO.
And all I ask of him is at least some evidence that RM/AO is able to address the conflicting goods embedded existentially in the abortion conflagration “out in the world”.
No. That is not how I construe these things. One can have faith in anything. Just as one can believe in anything. If all someone is telling me is that they have faith in God [or the precepts/tenets of their religion], why is that something I ought to lend any weight to? All I can do is keep pointing out that, historically, God and religion have always been linked instead to behaviors said to be judged by God – such that in so being judged the immortality and salvation of a human soul itself is said to be at stake.
So [like James] you are arguing that even “up there” among who those are well-educated in discussing these things philosophically, scientifically, theologically etc., there are conflicting and contradictory definitions/deductions being endlessly discussed and debated back and forth.
That then reminds me of the exchange between James and Eugene Morrow. They were not even discussing morality or conflicting goods. They were instead at odds relating to the physical laws of nature itself! In other words, relationships that would seem to revolve entirely around either/or.
No, you are asking me which city “I” would prefer. But: “I” as I understand it is rooted in dasein. A particular dasein that, in the course of living his particular life, has acquired a set of values more or less conducive to living in one rather than another town. But that is not the same thing as suggesting [which I think you are] that any rational man or women would choose A or B. Here “common sense” revolves around your own interpretation of it. Right? But who are “you”? And why/how have you become predisposed existentially to choosing what you do? And is there [philosophically, scientifically, theologically, religiously etc] a choice that all rational folks would/could/should/must embrace?
To answer such questions with either a “simple” yes or a “simple” no is the sort of approach that someone like mr reasonable seems to take. But “simple” answers are the last thing that I would ever endorse. And if I were to answer “I don’t know” it would be embedded in the assumption that objectively [given the nature of dasein and conflicting goods] no one can ever know the answer.
Again: We do not think about these things [these relationships] in the same way.
And what makes you and James objectivists to me is not the actual substance of your arguments, but the manner in which you both seem to be convinced that the substance that you espouse is within reach of anyone who is in fact a rational human being.
And then how you both [somehow] link this “substance” to the Christian God. Only, from my vantage point, neither of your arguments are really substantive at all. Merely an analysis/argument rooted in the circular logic of your definition and deductions.
Thus when you ask me if I can “show you where I am wrong?”, there is nothing really substantial there for me to sink my teeth into. No beef. At least not yet.
If this is the case, we may well want to just conclude this exchange right here. Right now. I am simply not interested in an “academic” or “scholastic” or “theological” pursuit of the relationship between God, religion, science, philosophy, objectivity, and morality. And I begin to suspect that your “very long and detailed answer” will just evolve into another “intellectual contraption” like RM/AO.
Perhaps, instead, we should wait until you have published your book and can discuss actual human behaviors like abortion and homosexuality then – in less abstract terms.
This sounds rather Calvinistic. As though God really is omniscient/omnipotent such that He has sealed your fate from the very beginning. Thus it really makes no difference what behaviors you choose with respect to moral conflicts like abortion or homosexuality.
If so, isn’t the journey itself just one more manifestation of it?
When someone keeps suggesting that I am “confused” or “mistaken” regarding the answers I give. Or that I refuse to answer “simple” questions with “simple” answers, I am going to argue that this is not the case. When I am convinced that it is not. And as I noted to Phyllo above I do tend to become more or less polemical in exchanges such as this. Sorry. That’s all but hard-wired into me after all these years.
But I understand your point and I will try to integrate that into me reactions should you decide to continue the exchange.
I agree. There may well be an objective answer with respect to points of view that come into conflict. But if one person argues that Jim will be executed for murdering Jane because Jim did in fact murder Jane [he admits it] and that Jim will be executed tomorrow at noon because in fact he will be executed tomorrow at noon, and another argues that none of this is true, the objective truth is there to be determined. None of it is just a matter of one’s personal opinion.
But if some argue that his execution is moral while others argue that it is immoral, how is the “objective truth” to be determined then? Sure, it might exist. And some might link it to a particular God and He might exist. But how do philosophers determine it? And how do mere mortals [who are not omniscient] come up with a “simple” yes or no answer?
