I understand that speech is different from the written works of individuals. My point is that it's important to understand what someone is trying to communicate, so to allow any interpretation of a printed work, in some ways destroys what the author may be trying to accomplish. You may add to the work or expand the thinking of the ideas in the work, but for me to allow for any interpretation in some ways destroys the work. It destroys the ideas behind the work, and in some cases we may be the lesser for it.

What's special about philosophy for me is the unlimited potential for thought. It's much broader than any one field because it goes beyond any one field of thought. You can incorporate philosophy into any endeavor you pursue. Even a carpenter's view of his work, his desire for excellence in the things he makes, has a philosophical foundation, an ethical foundation.

If it were up to me I would start teaching philosophy in high school, including basic logic.

Wow, I guess we're much further apart than I realized. To me Tillich's thinking is a muddled mess. However, to be fair, I've not studied him in depth, so I have very generalized view of his thinking. The language Tillich and other existentialists use, especially when it comes to epistemology is just not well thought out.

What about when a speaker is before a large audience? Besides certain written texts are directed at certain people. This is a joke right, this thread is meant to be a joke? Oh, I get it :-$ haha.

Suppose we applied this idea to our everyday speech. It doesn't matter what you meant, only how I interpret it. This a bit strange to me.

By definition, i.e., that they're separate necessarily means they're experiences are not the exactly the same. Even if it were possible to put you in a replicating machine and produce two biologically identical copies, immediately after such an event the experiences of both would necessarily make them different.

Simply the fact that it exists, along with the commentarial tradition that grew up around it over the centuries. You can be agnostic (as I am) but still not assume that it's all simply historical delusion and myth. Many people put it all in the same category as computer games or fantasy novels; that is one of the manifestations of the cultural nihilism that we're discussing elsewhere. (And a lot of people are unknowingly nihilist.) — Wayfarer

I agree with you in terms of the tradition, and that there are many facts that present themselves as part of that tradition, but, and I assume since you're an agnostic, that you also find the evidence to support a God lacking. This is my point. In many ways, I'm closer to your point of view, and I agree with some of your comments about the materialistic point of view.

As I read through much of what's said in this thread, I find that one of the problems, if not much of the problem has to do with how knowledge is acquired (an obvious observation). I have also been a student of Wittgenstein as some of you know, and I have great respect for Wittgenstein's ideas. In fact, his last work (On Certainty) tells us much about what it means to have knowledge, and if anything, it tells how expansive the use of the word know is. I have very rarely ever disagreed with Wittgenstein, because much of what I wrote on Wittgenstein was an exegesis. Although I did develop my own theory of epistemology based on his ideas.

My disagreement with Wittgenstein is that even he didn't fully appreciate the impact of his work, i.e., Wittgenstein's ideas, I believe, go much further than he even he thought. Although he did not downplay the importance of the mystical, he did not believe that we could have knowledge of the mystical, and this also carried over into his ethical discussions. He limits language, in terms of what we can know, to the world, and this is where I believe Wittgenstein went astray. The mystical is displayed by a showing, not a knowing according to Wittgenstein. This idea remains a part of his thinking from his early philosophy to his later philosophy. His later philosophy is much more accurate and practical than his earlier philosophy, but it still limits our knowing to how we use these words within the world, and within the culture developed around these words. The reasons for this have to do with the Austrian culture he came out of, and also the philosophical culture that molded some of his thinking.

My own view is that our knowledge is quite more expansive than Wittgenstein realized, and it's much more expansive than many materialists acknowledge. I definitely do not think that science has the corner on what it means to have knowledge. Some of you put a much higher premium on scientific thinking, and there are good reasons for this, but I think it is a mistaken notion that limits what we can know. One example comes to mind, and that is the experience of the self, my knowledge of myself, which surely is stronger in many ways than any scientific knowledge (any experimentation). In fact, our self awareness in some ways is bedrock to all that follows, including science.

That is always said with the apparent conviction that none of the religious literature of the Judeo-Christian tradition actually constitutes evidence. I mean, it is simply swept off the table with the gesture of it 'not being empirical science', as though it is thereby settled that nothing in it ever happened, that the whole corpus is simply the superstitious accretions of the pre-scientific mentality. Never mind that it is read out at weddings and funerals, and that billions of people still live by it; there's no 'evidence'. — Wayfarer

The problem for me Wayfarer, as someone who argued for years about the evidence in support of the Judeo-Christian tradition, is that although there is evidence, my contention now is that it's very weak testimonial evidence. The question, at least for me, is what conclusions can one reasonably draw from the available testimonial evidence. The main question is, does the evidence point to the existence of the Judeo-Christian God; and I don't see how one can reasonably conclude based on the available evidence the such a God exists.

When I wrote my thread on NDEs, in terms of consciousness surviving the body, I believe I gave a mountain of testimonial evidence in terms of numbers, variety, consistency, and objective verification of the testimonial evidence, but there is nothing like this in terms of the evidence that supports the God of the Bible. I'm mainly talking about first-hand accounts, not hearsay accounts, which most of the NT accounts, especially for the resurrection, are hearsay. For example, that 500 witnesses saw Christ after his death - pure hearsay.

So when you say evidence, I'm not sure what evidence you're referring too, and what conclusions can be reasonable drawn from this evidence.

There cannot be an infinite regress of existence — The Curiorist

I agree with the other comments, viz., that the above quoted statement is false. There is nothing that precludes the possibility of an infinite regress of existence. It's certainly not contradictory, for example, to say that there could be an infinite number of finite beings extending into the past. There could also be an infinite number of causal links into the past. In terms of modal logic, this is true metaphysically and logically, i.e., it's certainly metaphysically and logically possible. It may not be the case that these things are true, but surely the possibility exists.

I take it you weren't exposed to much Continental philosophy in your curriculum ;) — SophistiCat

I see what you mean. :-O

Ya, you really have to be challenged if you're to progress. There are a few people, a handful, in here that can challenge you, unless your so intellectually superior no one comes close. :D Other than that you'll have to be at a university with other intellectuals to be at the top of the game. Besides forget about being in here, all conversations with people tend to be less than what we (or I) expect, at least some of the time.

Ya, I think philosophy, when it's taught well, is valuable whatever field one chooses.

You mean there are really people who think this is not the case? I find that amazing.

I'm glad you explained what objective means, otherwise, I may have not understood. Of course objective means mind-independent, and of course anyone can state that X is an essential property of Y without it being the case. If someone does make such a statement, all it takes is one counter-example to refute it. So give me an example of an immoral act that doesn't cause harm? There maybe examples that are more difficult than others in determining the harm, but even in those examples one could make a strong case that one's character is harmed. I'm not saying the harm is always clear cut, but in those cases in which it is clear cut, it does seem to be the essential component or the essential property of immorality. Thus, I'm inferring from those immoral acts where the harm is clear cut, to those immoral acts where it's not so clear cut, that that property is probably just as essential. Furthermore, if harm isn't the one property that makes something immoral, what would make it immoral? Don't say "justice," because what makes something an injustice, is in fact, the harm done. Otherwise how could you say it's not just?

My own view is that there is an essential property to a moral act, and that property is the conventional view of justice. All moral acts are those that act for justice. If there is no justice, there is no morality. When I say this I'm not saying that every justice act is an morally good one, only that all good or moral acts are for justice. — SonJnana

I'm not so sure that justice is an essential property of [all] moral acts. Moreover, I would disagree that justice is a matter of convention (conventionality connotes subjectivity for me), that is, there seems to be an objective component to what's just. That said, I would agree that justice is an important part of being moral, but it doesn't seem to be an essential component. I haven't read all of your posts, but it's important here to define, at least generally, what you mean by being just. Justice seems to me to be something that's meted out in terms of compensation. Let's say that I help an elderly women cross the street, most people would consider this a moral action, the right thing to do. Furthermore, I may just act in accord with what I consider my duty as another human being, so my action doesn't proceed from the idea of justice, but it's based on a duty, a rule, or a principle. Justice may never enter the picture for most, most would just act from the motivation of kindness.

The second component is that morality is objective, that is, it's not subjective, or a matter of opinion, or a matter of consensus. For example, if I kill someone's wife because he killed mine, there are several factors that make this a moral act, and moreover, make it an objective moral act. First, it's objectively true that the arm has been cut off, we can see it on the ground. Second, we can objectively observe the fact that my wife was dead originally and now I have killed his. These two reactions show the objective nature of the justice done. No opinion or consensus will or can change the objective nature of these observations." — SonJnana

Maybe you mistyped, I'm not sure, but this act is not an example, of a "justice done," but is an immoral act based on the harm done. What makes all immoral acts evil, is the harm done to oneself or to others or to both. If a justice is done in terms of the act as you presented, then the person cutting the arm off would have to suffer the consequences of their actions based on relevant criteria. Justice would be something meted out after the fact, after the harm has been done. I suppose you could say an injustice has been done, but this begs-the-question, because what makes it unjust other than the harm itself? Harm is foundational for all immoral actions, as far as I can tell - no harm, no immorality.

Did you read the second paragraph? It explains why it's objective, and gives examples.

I explained that in the post.

I make an argument about objective morality in this thread starting on p. 2
(https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2297/if-objective-morality-exists-then-its-knowledge-must-be-innate/p2). I have several posts in this thread, so it's not just one post. So for what it's worth here is my argument.

So if I understand you correctly, there are no objective inherent reasons why murder is always immoral, other than what a society dictates?

Yes, I believe it is the backbone of philosophy, but knowledge can be gained apart from using just logic. I say argument is the backbone because one of the key features of philosophy is analyzing beliefs that are put forward as arguments. The goal is truth, and yes the wisdom you gain from discovery, but you have to do it well to gain wisdom. One doesn't gain wisdom apart from gaining knowledge.

I didn't say that was all there was to philosophy, but that it's a very important part of philosophy.

It seems to be a core feature of being self-conscious that one is aware or illuminated, so to speak, but that doesn't mean there aren't negative aspects of being self-conscious. My belief is that being human is only one reality where self-consciousness presents itself, and that it probably expands in other ways. This seems to be what people who have experienced NDEs testify to.

(Although in practice, and on Forums, what metaphysics usually does is result in interminable and irresolvable debate.)[/quote]

You will always have endless debates on these subjects, so what matters, at least for me, is, am I satisfied with what I've discovered. The tendency is for people to think that because one cannot resolve these problems with others, that that means they are not resolvable. Even if you (Wayfarer) had all the answers on these subjects, you would still have just as many disagreements.

But isn't something intrinsically valuable because it's not tied to anything else, like needs or desires. Needs though would be better connected than desires.

I agree, our desires may align with the intrinsic worth of a thing, but desire is not what gives something value. If that were the case my desire to murder would have value.

Well, we can desire things that have both intrinsic value and extrinsic value. Much of what we desire has some value whether real or perceived.

Honestly, when I think of intrinsic value I always ask, according to who or what? Because objectively speaking, reality has no intrinsic value, and by virtue of saying so is tantamount to a person holding superstitious believes positing that something has some sort of "meaning". The word intrinsic implies belonging to or innate to something. When we value something, we desire said thing. The question is who does it belong to, why and how? — Susu

Pleasure is something that is valued by humans, and there is an objectivity to the pleasure, so others can see it and participate in it. For example, people derive pleasure from music, we can objectively see it as we watch others, and we can experience it directly. Reality has intrinsic worth for us, at least much of it does - for example, watching a beautiful sunset. Without persons reality would have no intrinsic worth, because as you say, intrinsic value to whom?

So, how does one differentiate from what has instrumental value over intrinsic value? After all one could say reasonably that everything is of instrumental value to the self interested man. — Posty McPostface

Well, the way I see it is as follows: It's not a matter of what I think or believe that makes something intrinsically valuable - if that were the case, then one could claim that injustice has intrinsic worth or value.

Yes, many things that have intrinsic value have extrinsic value also. Paper money has extrinsic value, but very little, if any, intrinsic value.

The pleasure you get from wine or other things has intrinsic value. It's your experience regardless of where it come from.

To have intrinsic value is to be desirable in and of itself, independently of whether it leads to anything else. The primary example of something that has intrinsic value is Pleasure. Hedonism is the Value-Theory that asserts that Pleasure/enjoyment is the ONLY thing that has intrinsic value. Can you think of anything else that has intrinsic value? — Mitchell

Knowledge, love, persons, virtue, are other examples of things that have intrinsic value.

Actually Rich ad hominem attacks are fallacies related to arguments, not just any statement.

What you have to remember is that most people who believe in God don't arrive at their conclusion or conclusions based on good arguments. They believe for a variety of causes or reasons based on how they were raised, culture, who they respect, etc. So their foundation for belief is much different from those who come from a philosophical perspective, which generally uses the rules of correct reasoning to come to a conclusion (logic). Moreover, the terms used in philosophy tend to be more precise then what the general public uses, so reasoning as defined by the general public tends to be very subjective.

So when you say "share your reasoning" I assume you're talking about the use of good argumentation based on logic, not an opinion based reasoning. After spending roughly 40 years within the Christian community and teaching Christian apologetics in some churches over the years, it's my belief based on analyzing the arguments that there are no good arguments for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. Of course that's not to say there isn't any evidence to support Christian beliefs. For example, there is sufficient evidence that Christ was a real historical person, and that he had disciples, but that doesn't mean there is sufficient testimonial evidence to support the claim that he was God incarnate, or that he rose from the dead.

I'm also not limiting my belief to knowledge acquired through the use of logic. I say this to point out that there are other ways of acquiring knowledge, logic is only one tool, but it's a very good tool. It's possible of course that someone could have a direct experience with God, but of course how could you show that your experience is valid? People do claim such experiences, but they tend to be very subjective, and open to a wide variety of interpretations. For example, I've been in churches where people are singing and praising God and as a result of an emotional experience they believe the Holy Spirit is speaking to them. Another example is that many within a religious community will read the Bible, and maybe a passage or verse generates an emotion, and as a result, they'll interpret this as God speaking to them. I say all of this to point out that although sensory experiences are valid ways of acquiring knowledge, internal experiences are very subjective an open to a wide variety of interpretations. You can always interpret some internal experience in terms of your religious belief. It then tends to become self-sealing, and not subject to being falsified.

Finally, many within the church will claim that it's not a matter of evidence or correct reasoning, etc, but it's a matter of faith, i.e., they believe their faith speaks to something higher than reason or evidence. However, there is a huge problem with this kind of thinking, i.e., it's very subjective an open to all kinds of claims. This kind of thinking can lead to almost any kind of religious belief. One can always avoid well reasoned arguments against one's religious beliefs based on the idea that it's a matter of faith. It's true that people acquire their religious beliefs in this way. However, most rational people want to know if it's a fact that God exists, an objective fact.

Have you studied logic, it's not opinion based. I would agree that the general public uses the word logic in a very subjective way, but there are clearly defined rules that stipulate how one should draw conclusions from statements. In some ways, it's very similar to mathematics. If logic was subjective, as you're saying, then yes, there would be no objective criteria that would define good arguments, but that's just not the case. Lookup on Youtube, classes on symbolic logic, and you'll see what I mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M14ReHfPFUw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1asxHpewYi8&t=230s

It's not about competition any more than mathematics is about competition. Sure for some people it's about who's the best, but in philosophy, ideally, it's about truth, at least partly.

Also, when I talk about objective criteria, I'm referring to the rules and principles of logic. So the criteria for well-formed arguments is not a matter of opinion, at least for the most part.

I agree with other posts "thinking better" is relative to the subject matter. However, if what we are referring to are philosophical arguments, then there are objective criteria that are important. Also, intelligence is important, but being knowledgeable, all things being equal, will win the day over intelligence. There are many intelligent people who can't think logically, or they can't do it well. Also, because someone is an expert in biology, history, or any other subject that doesn't mean they know how to form good arguments. I've listened to biologists arguing their points about this or that, and they can't argue to save their life.

Finally, just because someone has studied philosophy, that doesn't mean they can form good arguments either, it takes a lot of practice, it's a skill. So thinking well in philosophy requires the ability to analyze and form good arguments, this, it seems to me, is the backbone of philosophy.

I agree, falsifiability, as far as I know is only applied to arguments or theories. Moreover, not all arguments necessarily have to be falsifiable.

I would agree that knowledge of our own minds isn't falsifiable, but I would disagree that knowledge of someone else's mind isn't falsifiable. It's certainly logically possible, and probably metaphysically possible that other minds could turn out to be a very advanced computer simulation. Is it likely the case, of course not, but we're talking about what's possible.

Thanks Creative, but it's all I can do to keep from screaming at people. Most of the time I can control my anger, but sometimes it comes out in sarcasm. I have to walk away from computer before posting to cool down sometimes. Believe me, I'm not always that great with my responses, but I'm always trying to improve. I use to crackup watching fiveredapples posts, because he would write what I would only think. I have to really be careful because I'm thinking "You IDIOT, do you even know what you're talking about," or "How LONG have you been studying philosophy!?" - so as you can see I'm not as innocent as you might think, but I do appreciate the kind words.

Here's an interesting thought related to this - have you ever noticed how sometimes people's jokes reveal what they really think of you? The joke seems to be a way of telling people in a non-confrontational way that they're an idiot. Listen to people's jokes about you, they sometimes reveal how people really feel about you.

Sorry, this is way off topic.