Yes, but we have to have that definition first. — NKBJ

We didn't when we spied the rock. According to you, we immediately (and perhaps unconsciously) generated a working definition of the rock. Why could we not do that with (say) an oboe (assuming we'd never encountered one before)?

Saying "it is beyond scientific understanding"...is actually saying, "it is beyond the understanding of scientists." — Frank Apisa

No, it's saying that it is beyond the understanding of scientists if they apply only science and scientific techniques.

We come upon a rock. We immediately register it's existence and simultaneously we register it's properties (like size, color, smell, etc.) thereby creating, immediately, a rudimentary definition of this thing. — NKBJ

OK, that seems to be a reasonable way of looking at things. :smile:

It's impossible, however, to say anything about things for which we have no definition whatsoever. — NKBJ

And yet, when we spied the rock, you suggested that we automatically generate some sort of internal definition. It seems to me we could do that with almost anything, couldn't we?

Eternalists hold that Socrates still exists, maybe in some sense what could be called his spirit does. — Devans99

All of those now passed continue to exist, in the sense that what they said and did during life does not disappear when they die. The influence they had, their contribution to human knowledge and culture, could (but need not always) exist for as long as humans do. I doubt this fully justifies Externalism, but it is a sort of continuing 'existence' that can't be denied. :chin:

Any assertion of the existence of any of these preternatural things humans have irrationally feared for millennia is baseless. None has been evidenced reliably. All are based on personal experiences, typically of unbalanced individuals seeking attention... — whollyrolling

Can you substantiate the emboldened part of your text, or is it just your opinion?

If I choose not to “enjoy a general discussion” that doesn't mean I lack understanding about any aspect of the discussion. — DingoJones

Of course it doesn't. :up: But, if you consider this discussion pointless, what are you doing posting here, in this topic? :chin:

How would you be able to determine whether something exists if you're not quite sure what it is? — NKBJ

Perhaps (and this is only one example) because I've seen it? If I spy something new, I don't collapse into a mire of uncertainty, unsure whether to name it first, or try to demonstrate its existence. I go with what's available, and I do one first, then the other, and then I proceed. There's no problem here, unless you think we're incapable of discovering genuinely new things (even if they're only new to you, or to me)?

If it is "beyond scientific understanding"...then by definition it is beyond human understanding. — Frank Apisa

Sorry, this isn't right. Science is one tool we have to use in the pursuit of understanding. There are others too. The most obvious example is simple, considered, thought; a structured consideration of something, outside of the methods and techniques of science. This is often called "philosophy". Art is also a possible way of exploring things too; it depends on the nature of the thing we're considering. There is more to life than mere science.

You cannot sensibly answer a question about somethings nature if it has no definition*. — DingoJones

Perhaps you can't. Others seem to have less difficulties with general topics than you do.

* - N.B. we're not actually considering something with no definition, we're considering something with no clear and precise definition. We all know, roughly, the meanings that "spirit" is used to carry.

I do not think Im being picky, your framing just wasnt clear, or sensical. Generally, it is the responsibility of the OP to set the terms of the discussion. — DingoJones

And the OP did just that, setting out a general matter for us to consider. Use the lack of precision, and enjoy a general discussion, whose use, value and direction will become apparent as the contributing posters develop it. If you don't understand how to do this, sit back and watch as others explain by example. :up:

I think you got the questions backwards. First ask, what is it, and then you can assess whether it exists. — NKBJ

What is it with you definitionists? These things can be considered - properly considered - without mandating a sequence of discovery. What something is, and whether it exists, are things worth looking into. That someone would deliberately oppose the process of discovery by mandating - "Definition first, then existence!" - the order in which things must be done is unjustifiable and unacceptable. If we can discover or learn something new, it doesn't bloody matter whether we identified it first, or demonstrated its existence. Both provide useful data with which to proceed.

In order to ask or answer whether or not something exists, one must first know what that something is.
How do you expect anyone to answer such a poorly framed question? — DingoJones

Consider something newly discovered. We, just this second, discovered that it exists, even though we have no idea what it is (yet). Imagine this is our first enquiry into this new discovery.

I think that answers your question.

for simple things like does the sky reflect the electro magnetic spectrum (a particular frequency) that usually appears to be blue to most people or that 1+1 = 2, those things in fact are objective truth. — christian2017

This is a debate derail waiting to happen. Some adopt a mild definition for objective truth, as you seem to: unbiased or impartial truth. Others use a more rigorous one: accurate correspondence with that which is. I think this topic is mainly associated with the latter. :chin:

Well notice that something like wikipedia would allow the language users themselves to be the ones to create and constantly update and modify the "dictionary". Consensus and evidence then determine what stays and what changes. — ZhouBoTong

Yes, although Wikipedia is not quite the democratic organisation it used to be. Too many hurdles to get over to become an editor. Still, as you say, it's the best way to implement a useful and worthwhile dictionary. :up:

:up:

Engineers and artists generally don't get along; and the main reason for that is that each pursuit requires completely different ways of thinking. — Ilya B Shambat

Your first sentence, and already you're sinking. :wink: Young and inexperienced engineers probably conform to your strange impression of engineers. As soon as they are able to do useful (engineering) work on their own, they discover they are artists as well as scientists. Design is a creative endeavour, and it involves art just as it involves science. And design is a central part of what an engineer will typically be asked to do. An engineering designer - for example, a firmware designer like me - is both artist and scientist.

Sorry. :wink:

The Muslim jihadists continue to make the claim that they are morally superior to the West. It is time that this claim be addressed [...] on the basis of values and institutions that actually make the West superior to the Muslims. — Ilya B Shambat

Is this the right approach, I wonder? You seem to be replacing one claim of superiority with another, opposing, claim. I rather suspect neither POV can be justified, perhaps because neither of them is correct? :chin:

If your issue concerns treatment from other members, including mods, you are free to personal message any mod and we can try and deal with whatever interpersonal problem that there is — fdrake

But, because our moderators (as we would expect of them) are moderate in their own actions, trolls can get away with a fair amount before significant action must be taken. Annoying though it is, we must just keep trying not to feed the trolls.

I think when I have a problem with words being used generally it is more because society has started using the word(s) flippantly to the point that they can have nearly opposite potential meanings ("conservative" and "liberal" are 2 words where I need more information to even begin to guess what they mean in any given context, and of course "literally" now generally means "figuratively"). If everyone gave dictionaries a bit more authority, it would solve a lot of problems - but even dictionaries change over time so it wouldn't solve everything. — ZhouBoTong

Here I think acceptance is of more use than challenge. Language really is a democratic institution, and its usage is dictated solely by its users. So, a few years ago, "bad" came to mean good, in everyday parlance. It doesn't really matter whether you or I like it; it just is.

Giving dictionaries more authority is, I think, an unachievable aim. The users of our language currently hold that authority, as they always have, and probably always will. I can't see language users losing their authority over their own language, can you? And, even if it was possible, would you really want it to happen? Consider, if dictionaries have authority, where does this authority rest? With one or a few senior dictionary executives, or something similar. What has been gained? :wink:

The use of generality in mathematics is that it allows abstractions (e.g., thoerem proved about an abstract triangle) to be applied to a multitude of situations: piece of land, movement of celestial bodies, trajectory of a ball, whatever.

Generality becomes specific when it is applied to the concrete. Generality gives movement to concepts/abstractions. In detaching from the material to the ideal, concepts are born. Generality is this detachment, or perhaps it is the realm where concepts flow (yeah there's some poetic licence here).

We could not even think metaphysical without the ability to generalise. — emancipate

Nice post. :up:

You can clearly see that with Frank Apisa in his example, the problem here isn't that agnosticism or atheism are vague, there's a fundamental disagreement here about the meaning of the terms. — Judaka

There is surely disagreement about the meaning of these terms, but is it "fundamental"? I don't really think so. All of the various meanings show shades of meaning, but not fundamentally different definitions. The general meaning really does cover all of the more specific ones, for any and all general purposes. And if the discussion moves to a more specific context, then the terms need greater clarity. I struggle to see anything here that anyone might disagree with....

I would actually say that most problems with the word "atheist" come from people assuming a more specific definition than the word actually entails. — ZhouBoTong

Exactly. :up: There are some contexts, at least, where "atheist" is used in a deliberately general sense. And it is used usefully in this sense. I am not arguing that we should replace specific terms with general ones, or specific discussions with general ones, but I am arguing that general terms and discussion have and deserve their place in our cogitations. Sometimes, trying to be too specific detracts from what we're trying to convey.

General and specific; each can be worthwhile, yes?

It's the job of the believer to prove that God does exist — NKBJ

Why is that? Must you prove that Donald Trump exists before we will discuss him with you? Every believer (belief in anything, not just God) decides what they believe. You decide whether you agree with them or not. No-one has the "job" of proving anything.

↪curiousnewbie
Go back to Bitter Crank's question - how do you identify an objective truth? — Banno

This, I think, is the core of this issue. Like most English words, truth has several meanings. Worse, in the case of truth and other similar (general) terms, it's supposed to have several meanings, because it is sometimes useful to refer generally to any/all of the related meanings that truth can have. And, of the meanings that truth can carry, "objective truth" is one of the more difficult ones. It refers to a concept we are convinced exists, but we have no means to verify such a truth. So, despite its apparent clarity, it is merely confusing to us humans.

Someone might advance the suggestion that there is no such thing as objective truth, meaning that we cannot recognise one?

At any rate few hippies founded anything or caused any sort of boom. — Bitter Crank

Agreed. :fear: We hippies had the right ideas. We knew about the importance of the environment, and all that jazz. We knew, as previous generations had not realised, that impending global collapse was down to us, and we had to make things better. But we didn't, and our period of rulership achieved almost nothing. We have betrayed our children and their children. We are a disgrace. :fear:

↪Tzeentch
The proble with the D/Tao Te Ching is that there are many different translations.

This translation from my Penguin edition (Trans. By D.C. Lau) makes more sense:

“Exterminate the sage, discard the wise
And the people will benefit a hundred fold;
Exterminate benevolence, discard rectitude,
And the people will again be filial;
Exterminate ingenuity, discard profit,
And there will be no more thieves amd bandits.
These three, being false adornments, are not enough
And the people must have something to which they can attach themselves:
Exhibit the unadorned and embrace the uncarved block,
Have little thought of self and as few desires as possible.” — I like sushi

Yes, with Chinese being so different from English, understanding (very) often relies, not on the reader, or even the writer, but on the translator. My favourite translation, since I first discovered it, is Ursula LeGuin's translation. Here is chapter 19:

Stop being holy, forget being prudent,
it'll be a hundred times better for everyone.
Stop being altruistic, forget being righteous,
people will remember what family feeling is.
Stop planning, forget making a profit,
there won't be any thieves and robbers.

But even these three rules
needn't be followed; what works reliably
is to know the raw silk,
hold the uncut wood.
Need little,
want less.
Forget the rules.
Be untroubled.

This chapter and the two before it may be read as a single movement of thought.
"Raw silk" and "uncut wood" are images traditionally associated with the characters su (simple, plain) and p'u (natural, honest).

Does that help? I hope so. :up:

I love learning so I guess I am a philosopher (by that definition). — Bitter Crank

:up:

Philosophy is about love of knowledge by definition. — Edward

The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek word "philosophia," which combines the words "philo" meaning "love of" and "sophia" meaning "wisdom."

The etymological definition of a "philosopher" is "lover of wisdom." Therefore, a philosopher is someone who ultimately values wisdom, in other words, someone who seeks it. The ancient Greek philosophers used the word 'sophia' in different ways. For example, originally, Homer used it in connection with craftsmanship, but Aristotle later used it to refer to the highest intellectual virtue (as opposed to phronesis or practical wisdom).

My guess is that people who have a high tolerance for ambiguity, open-mindedness, and so on are more likely to be interested in philosophy than people who have a low tolerance for ambiguity, and are not very open-minded. — Bitter Crank

:smile: In other threads, and on other forums, I have found that the most common 'strain' of philosophers have a very low tolerance for ambiguity, seeking to strike it down wherever they find it. Which is not very open-minded either. :chin:

What about your personality/brain do you think drives you to study philosophy? — Edward

I like to learn, and (if possible) understand too. :up: :smile:

↪Pattern-chaser
"So you're not sympathetic to the knowing discussion of imprecisely defined things? Is there a reason why?"

I have a background in philosophy and its much more interesting for me to be engaged in a discussion where there is enough mutual knowledge of historical figures or relevant ideas to start the conversation with a certain coherence. Others with much less background may find just the attempt to raise overarching questions about life to be satisfying. After college, many aren't able to find ways to become involved in such discussions as the mundane obligations of life begin to close in.

You see both types of discussion on this site, those with vaguely defined terms which attract beginning philosophers,and those that begin with and maintain a high degree of focus and relative precision. — Joshs

Maybe I'm getting the wrong message from this: you'll have to let me know if I have misinterpreted, OK? :up:

The tone of your words reminds me strongly of the scientists of the 1950s, who were convinced that science (mainly physics) had completed its quest, and described and explained the spacetime universe more or less completely.

You seem to be saying that a detailed conversation is for the experienced, while a more general discussion is only for amateurs. And, carrying on from my previous paragraph, you seem to be saying that all experienced philosophers do is to engage in discussions where everything can be, and is, defined in detail. This seems to mean that all we can do is to repeat discussions that have already taken place, or examine the minor details of some historic philosopher's major work.

New understanding starts with general discussion, and becomes clearer and better-defined as time passes. If we must confine ourselves to the detailed discussion you seem to prefer, doesn't this mean no new work, no new understanding(s)? I don't necessarily mean radically-new, revolutionary philosophy, but something a little more everyday.

If I'm wrong (it's happened before! :wink: ) then what is the point of general terms in our language? They clearly have a use, or the population wouldn't use them, and they would fade away. There is little that is more democratic than language, in this sense.

So what are general terms for, if not general discussion?

This is the article Psychology Today used to justify the claim. Is it wrong? — frank

I don't know if it's wrong, but I do wonder. I wonder if this is like that stuff about WEIRD, where results obtained from (say) young, (mainly) white, male, American, psychology students may not generalise to the whole population? The stuff I can find about atheists seems based on Americans, when the US has one of the lowest proportions of atheists. Does data from this very specific demographic apply universally? I don't know. Maybe it does.... :chin:

The test is if you can give a good definition of a general term. — tim wood

Hmm. I've been talking about these terms, terms that deliberately (in some cases) remain imprecise in order to describe something that is itself imprecise. So, if this is the case, a 'good' definition of a general term would be imprecise. A precise definition of an imprecise thing seems unlikely, probably impossible, wouldn't you say?

If I knew the cellular & electrical activity of every cell in the brain, would the mind-body problem be solved? — curiousnewbie

No, You'd need to know the interconnection map of every cell in the brain too, and understand what that map meant as regards mental function. That's quite a task you've set for yourself! :wink:

I don't like to talk about ethnicities as being interpretatively relevant but apart from individualists, the only ethnicity by and large that tries to ignore their ethnicity are Anglo-Saxon whites. The alt-right is basically complaining about that and many liberals hate them for it but why? — Judaka

Perhaps because of the difference between white-equalitarianism (if that's a word) and white-supremacy?

Does the human rights act include the right to Marmite? — unenlightened

Surely, yes! :up:

So no mini-deal on marmite then. You know this means war, don't you? — unenlightened

:up:

It seems a given in educated circles that Shakespeare and DaVinci created "better" art than, lets say, Michael Bay (makes movies that many would consider "low brow" like Transformers or Armageddon). Is there even a little justification for this? — ZhouBoTong

No. There is no 'good art' or 'bad art', nor is there any such thing as 'better' art. If the artist presents someting as art, it is art. Your part, and mine, is that we get to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". It's nothing more than personal taste. And every expression of personal taste is correct and unchallengeable, although other such expressions may contradict it. That's what personal taste is.

So no, there is not even "a little justification for this".

Why would someone want to have a discussion about anything...and insure that the matter being discussed is obscure? — Frank Apisa

Well, they wouldn't. But if the thing up for discussion is intrinsically ill-defined? Should we just shy away, and not try to talk about it? What about light? It's a stream of particles, or it's a wave, or it's both...? The term is clearly ill-defined. May we not discuss it anyway? Or gravity: we know that it is, but we don't have a clue what it is. And so on.

If a person identifies as an "atheist" and speaks of "atheistic" positions on an issue...why on Earth would you want those positions to be ill-defined? — Frank Apisa

No-one wants to be in such a position, but (as I said above), what if the thing being discussed, atheism in this example, is intrinsically ill-defined, as you have already said it is?

So...what is your point...what are you proposing here? — Frank Apisa

First, that we acknowledge the existence of ill-defined or vague terms, and that they exist for good reason (utility), not randomly. Then that we consider how these things might most usefully be discussed, to minimise confusion and misunderstanding. And finally, whether general discussions (which necessarily use general terms) are worthwhile. That'll do for a start. :wink:

Pirsig asserted that we all know what Quality is, it's only when we try to write down a precise definition that we get into trouble. Fair enough. But perhaps the problem might only be that Quality is a general term — Pattern-chaser

A clarification: these words might give the impression that I discount Pirsig's thoughts as a simple mistake. This is not so. I just chose my words poorly. I have read his books several times, and always had a soft spot for his Metaphysics of Quality.

That's not to say that starting with vague and loosely defined concepts doesn't happen a lot around here. That either will lead to a sharpening and defining of the issue or else people will tend to give up in exasperation and move onto a more fully thought out topic. — Joshs

So you're not sympathetic to the knowing discussion of imprecisely defined things? Is there a reason why?