imb,
I am almost back to my normal routine. I will try to reply tomorrow.
with love,
sanjay
Yes, this seems perfectly reasonable.
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”.
at wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Freedom
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?
imb,
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.
But, Jainism gives the solution too.
With love,
sanjay
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.
It’s ironic how judgmental you are. 
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.
With love,
sanjay
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.
Let’s just assume that you are doing something genuine and worthwhile and leave it at that.
:
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?
Is this observation then an inherent component of that universe? Are the words that I am typing here and now merely another intrinsic aspect of whatever the laws might have been that brought about the existence of the universe?
And are the ofttimes heated exchanges between theists and atheists here but more cosmological dominos toppling over on top of each other? Just an example of how astonishing the immutable laws of physics can be?
In other words, is there any possible way in which mere mortals can determine if the regress is derived from infinite space and time? from nothing at all? from God?
And what does it tell us about the nature of human psychology that there are actually an endless number of folks who really do believe that they have an answer.
Even the answer?!
My point was very simple.
The first thing is that our invented languages are not necessary for our perception/thinking. Our mind does not think in the terms of English or German.
I have discussed this issue in detail in the above mentioned thread. You may have a look.
The second point is that when we communicate with others, firstly we have to translate our thoughts to our mutually understandable language. But, in no case, that translation would be 100% precise. There would be always some difference between what exactly we thought and what set of language we used to express that thought. That is first approximation.
Now, the other person would hear that language, and once again, his mind has to translate that set of language in its own terminology. And, just like the first time, this translation would be not 100% perfect this time also. This is second approximation.
That happens every time when we communicate. That is why i am saying that the language can never be precise but there will be some content of approximation in that for sure.
John is a bachelor is a fact or truth but in a limited sense. If you tell it to such person, who does not know John completely, what meaning would he draw from it? The only thing he would able to understand that John has not married yet, nothing else. He may also assume that by saying that John is bachelor, your intention may be that though he is ready or want to marry but not married yet. That is from where approximation starts.
But, you may be talking about such a John, who is impotent or in the coma for some years. Then, your statement (John is a bachelor) will lose its true meaning, even though it is a truth.
I was drawing your attention to this phenomenon. That happens in every communication. No matter how hard you try, your intent will not be conveyed by 100%, something will be always left behind.
It seems to me that you did not get in which context i was saying that. I was talking about how the language operates between two persons, not the morality.
My point was that neither a women can explain what her physical and mental experiences were at the time of pregnancy, birth/abortion, not a man would be ever able to understand her feelings, no matter how hard both will try. That is the limitation of the language. Language is entirely dependent on the similarity of the experiences of the parties involved. Thus, the experience of womanhood could not be neither conveyed by the women nor understood by the men.
The fact of the matter is that we have not touched the actual subject yet. I have not said a single word about the God so far. We are rather engaged in objectivity/subjectivity discussion in different contexts.
Certainly. Is there any other way of drawing the conclusions? Yes, those may be right or wrong.
But, the story does not end here. All conclusions derived by such methodology should be brought to the table and should be challenged and discussed. Then, the most appropriate conclusion should be accepted as an objective opinion by all. Merely saying that every opinion is subjective does not serve the purpose.
Secondly, it is true that every opinion bounds to be subjective, but this does not mean that all such subjective opinions must have equal value. There will be some merits/demerits and proofs/assumptions in every opinion and they should be judged on that benchmark. Keep the judgment pending is not the solution.
But, they become philosophy when they do that.
As i said in the last post, what you considering as religions, are actually philosophies in true sense, not religions. In the strict sense, religions are limited to spiritual investigation by scholars in person. When their findings are used to form morality or lifestyle, they become philosophy by default. And, they should be seen accordingly too.
In crude language, religions are just lab assistants, which are on the payroll of philosophy.
Actually, that is what the religions are. What we are discussing here or people generally discuss considering religions, are philosophies, based on some spiritual findings.
That is precisely the perception that misleads you.
Like religions, science is also the lab assistant to philosophy. Science is restricted to the verifications of philosophical assumptions. That is how it has worked throughout the history of the mankind, except last 2-3 centuries, especially after Hume. I think that it was Hume, who is basically responsible for separating science from philosophy.
When science talks about assumptions like Big-Bang, how different is it from WTP of N?
Like religions, most of the science is also philosophy, if you exclude work done in the laboratories. These three streams of knowledge are so integrated and inter-dependent that you cannot draw a clear cut line between them.
I would like to draw your attention towards one more finding of the science. Einstein rejected the premise of Newton that the time is objective and concluded that it is also relative like location and speed. But, did he give any evidence of that? Not at the time, though it was later confirmed by placing two same clocks having same time at different heights like watch towers and satellites.
alternativephysics.org/book/Time … iments.htm
Now, what would you call this whole process, right from assumption to physical verification, science or philosophy?
Quite possible.
I can agree with that.
I will certainly be one of those, neither first nor the last. I am well aware of that.
And, what i am trying to do here is homework or taking feedback for my book. I want to know in advance what criticism by book will attract, so that i can address that already.
Yes, because that is not possible on the net either and needs interaction in person. Secondly, nobody is going to believe me either, like you will say that it is all in my head. Do you not? So, what other option i have?
No, actually it can also be proved philosophically to quite extent without going for new investigative scientific evidences, but by using some such phenomena, which is common and familiar (undisputed) to all. I will use those undisputed day to day experiences as evidences. There are many such phenomena around us but we do not pay attention to those. Actually, they are so common that we take those as granted.
Both things have to be done side by side. Without the theory, there cannot be any value judgments. You need a benchmark to judge anything.
You are only saying so but not doing that honestly, at least you are sounding such to me.
Look at this statement of yours again.
See, that is very straightforward and honest statement by you. You did not bring desdein into it, like you use it in every other statement. Why? Anyone can easily understand that you are passing a judgment and what is its true meaning. That clearly shows that it is not the case that you do not make clear subjective judgments. You do that when you want to do but when i am asking for the same, you steps back and vary carefully choose a very complex and confusing language, so i cannot accuse of taking a call. That is my objection.
I was talking precisely about your that habit of wondering. All i was saying that do not wonder or try to presume what is pertinent or not before i complete my any point by putting all things into perspective. After that, you are welcome to question as hard as you like.
I may lead you to some points or some phenomena, which may seem to you completely out of the context, but they will be not. You will also realize their relevance later.
Imb, you need to understand what i am trying to do and why. I can put all that very succinctly and directly but that would be in the way which i understand. That may be difficult for you to comprehend because you have gone through that what i experienced. Thus, you will keep repeating the same phrase of yours that is all in the head, not out there in the reality. And, this whole discussion will come to an end without achieving anything.
Thus, to overcome this problem, i am trying to talk in the language of your head, instead of my head. That is why i come up with these simple questions between our discussion. That will help your head to tune with my head. There is no other reason whatsoever. But, that can serve the purpose only when you give me honest and straight answers, not manipulative ones.
But, You may have not realized but that is exactly what you did by questioning the validity of my question. You refused to come along to the hills to verify the snowfall. You are saying that going to the hill is not pertinent with the verification of snowfall.
Actually i am taking you to the God, though not physically but philosophically for sure. You can make that journey from where you are. But, let your intellect travel with me to new thoughts. Do not question my way of constructing the argument, but only the argument itself. Otherwise, it would be the same mistake that the man of that desert analogy does.
You seem to be too much influenced by the James, either in right way or wrong way. We are not discussing here what James thinks or not. Please get out of this.
You completely misunderstood my point. I was not talking about all this.
If you remember my definition of the religions, which i gave above in this thread too, they are restricted to metaphysical investigations/spiritual practices in person. But, religious scholars do not do that anymore. They found faith in something by either by culture or reading the literature instead, to be a religious scholar, and think that they have been become a true religious scholar but they are not. They are actually mere intellectuals having faith in any particular philosophy. Religiosity entails investigation in person, otherwise it is mere philosophy.
Let me explain it. There would be a lot of difference in the understanding of a mere commentator and a real player. A commentator cannot be a true one, unless he is not played the game in person. What religions have now are mere commentators, who have never played the game themselves but trying to be an expert merely on the basis of known experiences of the past players. But, then the issue of the language approximation comes into play and that will not let them to understand what the other person has actually said and they start interpreting scriptures according to their incomplete understanding. That is exactly what the most of the religious scholars are doing since long.
You stretching this like a rubber. I am not saying that your I is not rooted in a particular dasein. Of course, it certainly would be. I am neither challenging it nor asking you to discard that either. All i am asking you to use that dasein and give me an answer at least, instead of repeating again and again that your values are rooted in your such subjective dasein, which i cannot understand.
But, you do not stick to this your very mindset or principle when you gave definition of subjectivists in the other thread!
Look again-
Now, what is this? Is it not a simple yes or no? Are you not very clearly concluding that objectivists will never concede to anyone? Did you not use your I here, which is rooted in your particular dasein, to draw a unmanipulated, simple and clear cut answer? But, you refuse to do the same when i ask you any question. Why do you behave differently when you want to decide anything and when i ask you to decide? And, this statement of yours is not the only one such example. You do that often.
That is my objection. Had you showed the same mindset regarding all the issues, i would have not objected. And, that also gives me impression that you are being selective with your this premise of subjectivity and use and discard it according to your convince.
No, that is not true. I do not know merely means that a particular person does not know. It does not entail that no one can ever know it. You may be unable to decide the objectivity but someone else, now or in the future, may be able to do that.
That is certainly true in my case. I will not deny that even if that is some sort of shortcoming, mistake or accusation by you. Having said that, i listen to other versions and my criticism patiently and open to change for the better too.
Having said that, I want to add a slight caveat to that. Objectivism is as much about the process too, as about the goal. If an objectivist will not able to find the perfect solution, it would settle for the best among the lot.
imb, to be honest, i do not know exactly what you expect from me and how you are expecting me to give you that. All i am trying to do in this thread is giving you the proof of the God, in the best way that you can understand and is possible on the net. That is all. And, that would be nothing like RM/AO but very simple arguments about very simple and common things/phenomena around us.
I do not have any issue either in continuing or concluding. That depends entirely upon you. I am open either way. If you see any worth in having discussion with me, you can continue, otherwise you can simply ask me to stop. I would not mind that at all. As you initiated this thread, thus should be your call. Though, personally i do not mind continuing. The only thing I would never tolerate is losing civility.
Maybe. You asked me a question and i give you such answer which i consider true.
It actually makes do difference to the ultimate outcome.
No. The journey is predetermined at macro level only, not the micro level. There is some room for free will also in the broder framework of determination. And, that free will can change the course and time taken during the journey, though ultimately it will end up precisely where it was supposed to be initially.
I am not saying that you should not explain yourself. I just told you my intention behind this discussion.
Glad to hear that.
Yes.
Sorry, i did not get what you are trying to say here. It looks to me that perhaps there is some linguistic issue with that.
By discussing and testing all viewpoints from every possible angles, with the best of the our ability and honestly too.
with love,
sanjay
But what does this really – really – have to do with the distinctions I keep making between words that are able to express what is true objectively for all of us [the laws of nature, empirical facts, the rules of language etc.] and words that seem able only to express a subjective point of view?
There may not be a precise translation when a German and an English doctor discuss performing abortions, but that which they are discussing is still embedded in the objective reality of human biology.
Not so when they discuss the morality of abortion. When one views abortion as moral and the other immoral.
How much less precise is the language then?
Same here. What does this really – really – have to do with addressing the point I am raising? We can use language to encompass both the biology of human sexuality and the biology of abortion…and this biology [embedded in the evolution of life on earth] is the same around the globe for all flesh and blood human beings. That, biologically, men are not women is an objective fact. And from this fact men can never understand pregnancy and abortion as women do. But who is arguing that they ought to? And yet “out in the world” there are both men and women who argue that abortion is either moral or immoral.
When are you then going to focus the beam more on the manner in which I discuss these opposing moral agendas with respect to dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? Biology is one thing, morality something altogether different with respect to things we can reduce down to either/or.
But this just reminds me yet again of James. In other words, only when I have finally understood the technical, philosophical distinction between “objective” and “subjective” [or the one true distinction between science, philosophy and religion] can we then move on to the parts that intrigue me. The parts relating to actual conflicting behaviors of actual human beings interacting out in the actual world that we live in.
Ah, but that will only happen [or so it certainly seems to me here and now] when I am able to agree with him about what this distinction is “logically”, “epistemologically”. Which [of course] entails that I embrace his own definitions and deductions. After all, how can his conclusions be said to be true unless they follow from his premises?
And here he becomes but one more objectivist qua abstractionist.
And my reaction is invariably the same: What [u][b]in the world[/u][/b] does this have to do [u][b]with[/u][/b] the lives that we actually live? Now, the preponderance of religionists that I have come upon in venues such as this may not be as scholarly in grasping the manner in which you connect the dots between religion and philosophy, but at least I recognized the world that we do live in when they spoke of their belief in God. I just didn’t share their faith.
When I discuss the manner in which I construe the relationship between words, language, objectivity, subjectivity, moral and political values, identity, political economy etc., I don’t have any problems illustrating the text. Over and again I situate the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of these words into actual flesh and blood human interactions. Indeed, I always ask the moral objectivists I come upon to join me “down here” so that we can in fact make our arguments more substantive.
You say:
But I don’t really have a clue as to what this actually means. It is simply too abstract pertaining to conflicting value judgments…and the manner in which they are embedded in a religous narrative.
Instead, I must first grasp your “theory”. And then back again to understanding [and agreeing with] your definitions and your deductions. Out of which you extract the asssumptions that [circularly] make your arguments true objectively. That is how I react to abstractions like these.
Yes, if I were answering them honestly you would recognize it as the sort of answer that is honest. And that will be the sort of answer that you would give. And then around and around we go.
In my view, my language is “complex and confusing” because it requires your language to come down out of the clouds of abstraction…i.e. to note how it is is relevant to the lives that we live. Lives that again and again come into conflict over moral, political and religious values. And, in my view, you will become more honest [as I perceive the meaning of that word here] when you are able to acknowledge just how much your argument is dependent on the internal logic of those definitions and deductions.
And I use dasein only when it is appropriate. In other words, when it pertains to identity and to value judgments. And then, time and again, I note the many, many, many instances in which it is not relevant at all: regarding that which is in fact true objectively for all of us. So, no, I do not keep repeating [mindlessly] the phrase “in your head”. I note instead the crucial the distinction between what we claim to believe is true subjectively “in our heads” and that which we are then able to demonstrate to others is in fact true objectively “out in the world” for all of us. Thus, when I ask “where’s the beef?” I am merely noting how, in my own estimation, you do not do this. Instead, as with James, that part will always come “later”.
But you don’t take me to the hills at all here. Instead, you want me to go “up there” where we can discuss the hills and the falling snow “theoretically”. Only after I have come understand this as you do can we go to the actual hills. Same with objective morality and God. Again, they come “later”. Now, however, as “serious philosophers”, we must first learn how to think “logically” about these things. The way James does. Or the way you do. Or the way hundreds and hundreds of additional objectivists do. And then when I point out how they all embrace conflicting and contradictory moral, political and religious dogmas, I am basically told, “well, what does that have to do with anything?” What counts, in other words, is that their own “theory” is the correct one.
You tell me that when our journey ends here you will not be taking me to the real God “physically”, but to the real God “philosophically”. Similarly, you will not be focusing here on resolving any actual “conflicting goods” I note with respect to issues like abortion or homosexuality; but only in demonstrating the “philosophical” truth one needs to grasp in order to bring the “logic” down here.
James in my view is an abstractionist. At least with respect to moral and political value judgments and to God. In some threads, he has this “theoretical” construct where everything fits together “logically”. And then, in other threads, he passes judgments on particular human behaviors. “Up there” here and “down here” there. But he refuses to connect the dots between them.
Al I can do here is once again note how [to me] this is an analysis/argument that amounts to little more than a string of words defining and defending more words still. Is it true? Well, true with respect to what? How is it relevant to the lives that we live from day to day? Of what practical use or exchange value is it when we are confronted with the question, “how ought I to live?”
In fact, this is precisely the sort “dueling deduction” approach to philosophy that we come across on threads like Lys’s “Performance Ontology”. Paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of these dense, scholastic, autodidactic abstractions. The stuff of pedants more often than not. In my view, this is precisely what makes “serious philosophy” today increasingly irrelevant to the lives we live.
But: What you are asking me to do is to answer this question such that the manner in which I think about any particular individual answering a question such as this is discarded altogether.
As though there were a “real me” that would be able to answer it as either A or B. As though “theoretically” a true philosopher would clearly be able to answer it in the only logical manner in which a rational human being could answer it. And yet over and again I do situate the manner in which “I” understanding these relationships out in the actual world. Something I can never get you to do. Only when questions and answers like this are reduced down to either/or are moral objectivists satisfied. Or, rather, this has been my own experience with them.
For me, this always comes down to the extent to which I become convinced that someone’s “definitions and deductions” will never pitch tent down here until and unless I agree to go up into the stratosphere in order to discuss and debate how, once and for all [logically], a truly serious philosopher must define and deduce these things.
As with James, I ask you only to at least give me a rough idea of how your moral and religious values “down here” are intertwined into your philosophical sense of how one distinguishes between an objective truth and a subjective point of view. James, of course, won’t go anywhere near that until I do agree to discuss all this “theoretically”. And then [though he won’t admit this] agree that his TOE must be the starting point when finally grappling with “existential reality”.
Linguistic? I am noting something that is in fact true with regard to all actual contexts in which someone does commit a capital crime. He admits that he committed the crime. The evidence confirms it overwhelmingly. And since the crime is a capital offense, he is sentenced to be executed for committing it.
Who is going to argue about the meaning of these words? If all of this is true objectively, what does it then mean [for all practical purposes] for someone to say that, on the contrary, in his opinion, none of it is true?
Instead, the heated discussions and debates revolve around whether it is just and moral for the state to execute the man.
Around political narratives like this: deathpenalty.procon.org/
In other words, to what extent, using the tools of philosophy, are rational men and women able to employ language in order to articulate the most rational argument of all? So as to articulate a deontological assesmment of this conflict.
And then, to what extent is someone who believes in God, able to integrate this argument into their religious narrative in turn.
And, in my view, it is in responding to this that you and James seem basically cut from the same cloth.
Or, rather, so it seems to me here and now.
You say that this can be accomplished…
But how in the world could any mere mortal come even remotely close to making contact with all of the various conflicting viewpoints here? After all, most of these viewpoints are precisely rooted in all of the many historical, cultural and experiential contexts that millions upon millions of different men and women have been embedded in throughout human history.
How could one’s “ability” and “honesty” not be profoundly problematic here precisely for this reason?
Or consider this:
Mike wants Mitch to be executed because Mitch raped, tortured and killed his 12 year old daughter. His death will at least bring him some closure, some peace of mind to him and his family.
Mary does not want Mitch killed because Mitch is her brother. His execution will cause her [and her family] great pain and suffering.
Here are words being used to articulate a context viewed from two conflicting points of view. Now, given your own philosophical tenets and religious beliefs, what would your own reaction be?
Again, at least nudge me in the direction you would like for me to go.
Another quote from John Lennon: “God is a concept by which we measure our pain”.
And who does not have to endure pain? Now, with religion you have a place to dump it all. With God [whether in the context of a particular denomination or in a broader – and considerably vaguer – “spiritual” relationship] you can situate it in His “Will”, in His plan for you, in His “mysterious ways”.
So, sure, if you are able to acquire [existentially, as dasein] such a “spiritual” connection with your own “personal” God, why not? You can merely point to what you believe to be true about Him “in your head”.
But then [in my view] you are still faced with this: What ought I to do such that my behaviors “down here” will be judged favorably by God “up there” so as to attain immortality and salvation?
And what of those who believe in another, different God? Or those who believe in no God at all? What will be their fate?
But, for the ecumenical religionists, is that really their concern at all? As long as they are covered “spiritually” regarding their own “personal” relationship with God, that need be as far as it goes.
I only wish that I could figure out a way to believe that “in my head”.
sorry
Lmb,
I am sorry for the delay. I am not having much spare time since last 3-4 days.
Actually, the first issue with me that the English is neither my first language nor i am an expert of it. I cannot think in the terms of English. I have to think in my mother tounge before translating it into English, especially regarding subtle and complex issues. That takes a lot of time.
Secondly, for some reasons, my mind takes a long time to reach any conclusion. And, i cannot do that it parts. Means, i need at least two hours time at a streach to reply in such threads, in which we are involved right now. That makes it more diffcult for me.
I hope that you understand and bear with me.
Nevertheless, i will make posts tomorrow in both of the threads.
with love,
sanjay
This, in other words: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism
And isn’t that just another rendition of this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism
Now, sure, I can well understand the appeal of this. In fact, I was once a member of the Unitarian church right here in Baltimore. And Untitarian-Universalism is not all that far removed from the two above: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
It is appealing because it seeks to obviate the sectarian nature of denominational religion and places the emphasis more on your own personal “spititual growth”. It was basically my own attempt to find some sort of middle ground between “our God” in the Protestant Community Church and “no God at all”.
But it didn’t take. Or not for long. I was becoming increasingly more embedded in the political struggle to reconfigure “the system” back then; and many, many folks here were quite radical. And that invariably meant that they were atheists. And so I became one too.
Also, I have never really understood how one can believe in a God, the God…then subscribe to one or another rendition of scripture…then link it all to one or another rendition immortality and salvation.
It was like a “cafeteria” approach to right and wrong, moral and immoral behavior. As long as you were able to convince yourself that any particular behaivor was not a Sin, then God would overlook it on Judgment Day. You know, if it did not coincide with His actual will.
Thus it seemed more a way to reduce everything down to some vague “spiritual” intuition. A way to set aside conflicting value judgments rather then to meet them head on.
Again, respond when you are able. No problem from my end.