I think all of our knowledge fits into this category. When we are very young, we are very limited in our understanding of the meaning of words, the content of words surpasses our understanding. Eventually we reach a point of "average comprehension," where in most contexts our understanding of the meaning of words lines up with that of our fellows.

But if we continue to study and develop, usually what happens is we begin to focus in more on certain specialized subjects. Then our understanding can begin to grow vertically beyond the sedimented historic meanings of words and begin to encapsulate expanded meanings, based on whatever frameworks of investigation and validation.

But there is more than that. We can also expand our understanding horizontally, covering a wider array of subjects and contexts. And this is the process wherein we encounter most the limitations of language. Or, I'd rather say, where intuitive apprehensions of connections surpass or supersede sedimented meaning. What kind of light does quantum physics shed on evolution? Or what does early twentieth century intellectualism teach us about social democracy?

Even further than that. The longer we live, the more opportunity we have to observe what I'd call "very long term consequences" of our habits of thought. Things that simply cannot be "reasoned out" in an hour, or a day, or even a year. Because they are the results of many different kinds of efforts, in many different dimensions of life.

So, yes, in the largest sense, I think words are only ever approximations. I think the closer we look at life, the more we come to understand exactly how much of it really is "ineffable" as you say.

This idea of the power of belief has come to its logical conclusion for me.

Lately I've begun to realize and understand that we are our beliefs. Our beliefs are the entirety of our being. One can understand this completely, and yet, trying to elaborate what these are, find them either trite and mundane, or nebulous and elusive, hard to pin down or specify.

And so they should be. Heidegger says "the more comprehensive a concept is in its scope...the more indeterminate and empty is its content" (Introduction to Metaphysics, p. 43) So, in fact, knowing that beliefs are the basis of being, we reach the point of the pure indetermination of content. I know that I am both the product and the author of my beliefs. I know that I exist. Cogito ergo sum.

Relative to another thread, for example, this would explain why people need religious beliefs; they need religious beliefs to found their being when they themselves are incapable of doing so. Either you assume responsibility for your own being, or you accept a whole lot of doctrinal gibberish that does nothing to fill in the gaps between obeyances.

Glory, for the Greeks, is the highest manner of being....Glory means doxa [which is "belief"]....I show myself, I appear, I step into the light. (Introduction to Metaphysics, p. 108)

The being of believing, the being of believers, the being of belief.

I'm pretty pleased at how well that piece from 15 years ago stands up. I still see my core beliefs there.

Which coincides with what I'm working on now. Lately I've begun to realize and understand that we are our beliefs. Our beliefs are the entirety of our being. One can understand this completely, and yet, trying to elaborate what these are, find them either trite and mundane, or nebulous and elusive, hard to pin down or specify.

And so they should be. Heidegger says "the more comprehensive a concept is in its scope...the more indeterminate and empty is its content" (Introduction to Metaphysics, p. 43) So, in fact, knowing that beliefs are the basis of being, we reach the point of the pure indetermination of content. I know that I am both the product and the author of my beliefs. I know that I exist. Cogito ergo sum.

Relative to another thread, for example, this would explain why people need religious beliefs; they need religious beliefs to found their being when they themselves are incapable of doing so. Either you assume responsibility for your own being, or you accept a whole lot of doctrinal gibberish that does nothing to fill in the gaps between obeyances.

Glory, for the Greeks, is the highest manner of being....Glory means doxa [which is "belief"]....I show myself, I appear, I step into the light. (Introduction to Metaphysics, p. 108)

The being of believing, the being of believers, the being of belief.
(I realize I also posted this on another thread but, it really fit there even though it was conceived here).

Time enough for Love by Robert Heinlen

The same way I can't no there are no flying elephants either, huh? — 180 Proof

Yes, exactly like that. :roll:

No. Biology (i.e. evolution) doesn't have a "purpose". — 180 Proof

I can just as easily assert that "everything has a purpose." Rather than making pronouncements, I prefer to construct descriptions or models that fit with accepted facts as well as my own hypotheses. There is literally no way that you could know that biology doesn't have a purpose.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with the psychological gloss. I think a lot of people are dismissive of psychology as somehow unscientific. Clearly, consciousness has its own science which encompasses things like metaphor, semiotics and psychology. For my part, I assume that everything is significant. Since we have direct access to dreaming, for example, I don't try to analyze the phenomenon as much as to explore it. Certainly the whole eros-thanatos duality is meaningful.

Meaning can be viewed as a problem, however it can also be viewed as a fact of human existence. The interesting question is, since meaning is a fact of human existence, it is likewise a fact about the universe in general? So does meaning have its own objective reality? If so, then maybe by the same token does consciousness.... It seems unlikely that meaning has only lately come into being.

I’ll pick the one I like more because it is less limiting — khaled

:up:

This answer assumes that neither optimism or pessimism is the proper starting point, but that neutrality is. You then use the neutral perspective to determine that optimism is better than pessimism, but you fail to explain why neutrality is best. — Hanover

I didn't mean to imply that neutrality was best. When I suggested to begin from a neutral standpoint, this was another way of saying ceteris paribus, all other things being equal, there being no antecedent reasons not to be pessimistic, nor to be optimistic.

but one could instead think of pessimism as "something bad could happen" — Pfhorrest

But is this really what is meant by pessimism? I understand the desired symmetry, but I think your construction is misleading. "Be prepared for the worst but hope for the best" really doesn't fit what anyone means when they describe someone as a pessimist. Pessimism and optimism are meant to be understood as polar, I would argue. Hence what you are really advocating is just a brand of optimism, cautious optimism, I would say. Which I fully endorse!

very real possibility of a possible extinction of the human race, or of such environmental conditions that people may really begin speculating that the situation is beyond all possibility of remedies. — Jack Cummins

The big question is, will the spirit of humanity continue to grow and blossom somewhere, despite the decay of its body? Or will a complete spiritual, moral, and intellectual bankruptcy long precede the eventual disappearance?

I see pessimism as a leading to a problem for choices. I once had a tutor who said that it was a mistake to try to give people a sense of hope. I see false hope as a problematic, because it can lead to a sense of futility. However, to discourage any sense of hope at all, taken to the maximum, would seem to imply that it is not worth bothering to try to make any improvements or changes to make one's own situation, or even that of others any better. It would seem to me that it would be saying that the situation is hopeless and amount to the position of giving up all together. That would be the ultimate logic of nihilism, in its most negative form. — Jack Cummins

Yes, this is essentially my perspective as well Jack.

Hope you don't mind, I just came across a bit in the Introduction to Metaphysics where Heidegger talks about the grasp which modern consciousness has of its own being in a world exploding with and exploded by technology. It seemed appropriate:

The spiritual decline of the earth has progressed so far that peopies are in danger of losing their last spiritual strength, the strength that makes it possible even to see the decline [which is meant in relation to the fate of "Being"] and to appraise it as such. This simple observation has nothing to do with cultural pessimism - nor with any optimism either, of course; for the darkening of the world, the flight of the gods, the destruction of the earth, the reduction ofhuman beings to a mass, the hatred and mistrust of everything creative and free has already reached such proportions throughout the whole earth that such childish categories as pessimism and optimism have long become laughable.

Scepticism does not preclude optimism. Nor does it have anything whatsoever to say about expectations.

So despite pessimism can be sometimes tired, at least we have a more realistic figure of our life not expecting so much and then if we reach it the satisfaction is even better. — javi2541997

This is not pessimism but stoicism.

To me, it is all about agency and choice. It is a choice whether to take a pessimistic or an optimistic stance.

Naive optimism might be construed as the belief that "things might improve" but I think this is an unsophisticated argument. I believe a true optimist is someone who interprets a situation optimistically in concert with the belief that his actions contribute materially to that possibility. Hence, why I characterize myself as a melioristic-optimist.

Conversely, naive pessimism assumes "things will get worse." However there is no other version of pessimism. If one is a pessimist, then one necessarily believes that there is nothing he can do to preclude things getting worse. Hence, pessimism is really simultaneously a denial of agency. And hence a denial of the meaning of choice, an invalidation or disclaimer of free-will. In that sense, pessimism is self-contradictory and absurd. Which is probably why pessimists are unhappy. Or maybe it is the other way around. Unhappy people are pessimists?

I guess, following that line of reasoning, pessimism could be seen as the experience of the "failure of agency." That I'd believe.

Let's assume we begin from a neutral standpoint. What advantage is there in being pessimistic versus optimistic? Pessimism is inherently restrictive, optimism is inherently open-ended. Pessimism assumes that something bad is going to happen and can't be avoided. Optimism assumes that something good could happen.

Cards on the table. I am a melioristic-optimist.

I hear the term non-binary more and more including in many online surveys yet according to Wikipedia anyway only about 10,000 people in the world identify as non-binary amongst billions of people. Isn't it a little extreme to let such a small group try to dictate whether or not a person can denounce all gender? Lol. It's fine to be more masculine or feminine, but one can't really say they are genderless? — TiredThinker

My issue is not with whether people choose to identify as non-binary, but with the projection of expectations upon others based upon this choice. Language evolves as a function of collective use, not selective pressures. And it is a slippery slope. What is to prevent me from identifying as a completely unique gender, and applying all kinds of linguistic constraints which other people then not only have to respect, but follow in general usage? If a minority of a few thousand has this authority, why not a minority of a few hundred? Or one?

Non-binary writers should adopt these conventions and they should trickle into culture thereby. The same way that culture and language have evolved since the beginning of time.

Well, this seems to me impractical and unlikely. These domains barely tolerate restriction by rule of law. What would be the general motivation to adoption?

That's just a natural or physical (i.e. descriptive) science when you get down to it, a study of what peoples' ethical beliefs are, rather than a study into which ethical beliefs are the correct or incorrect ones. — Pfhorrest

I don't see why that is any reason not to include it.What people do do is certainly relevant in some sense to what they should do. Certainly some people in some circumstances do do what they should do. That would seem to be scientifically significant.

What about descriptive ethics?

I don't mind at all, I appreciate the suggestion. Thank you. :)

Introduction to Metaphysics by Martin Heidegger

Apparently Heidegger conceived this work to be both a companion and the heir to Being and Time. It's been on my bookshelf for nearly a decade - overlooked gem.

Just broke the bank on Max Scheler:

On Feeling, Knowing, and Valuing: Selected Writings
The Constitution of the Human Being: From the Posthumous Works, Volumes 11 and 12
Selected Philosophical Essays

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xOqhJnPtLxxDBVxGNLPjjrfoxTp7-WuL/view?usp=sharing

Any time I see a worm on the sidewalk, I take it and place it back in the ground, digging a little burrow and all. Similarly, any time I see a spider or ladybug inside, I take it and bring it back outside. I think that - while it is a curious thought, like you said - a vital consideration to make when doing something good, is if anyone is around to watch you do it. — Zolenskify

i went back to college about 10 years ago because the government paid me to get a programming diploma as a skills upgrade. I used to get there quite early some days and had to walk a long path from a rear parking lot to the campus. There would always be a large number of worms crossing the path in the heavy morning dew. After carelessly stepping on one, I resolved to be more aware, so thereafter i walked with extreme caution the length of the path.

One day, after a few weeks of this, I was picking my way along when suddenly my mind opened to everything that was going on everywhere around me. I saw sun shining on the surrounding fields and lawns, and the few other people on their way to class, I even saw myself carefully navigating the path.

I think the greatest good one can do, for oneself and others, is to cultivate mindfulness, being in the moment and aware of everything that one does and of its impact on everything else.

Hence the Tao which can be spoken is not the eternal Tao...

Personally I practise this by consciously trying to speak much less than is my natural tendency.

He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know.

The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov
The Metaphysics of Pragmatism by Sidney Hook

However, when I first began experiencing them it was so intense and the experience were of other people's deaths. I did even wonder if I was responsible for the deaths at some point, — Jack Cummins

Yes, one very scary instance of this myself. I was up all night rationalizing why it was reasonable for the person to die, kept looping over and over in my head for hours. Happened the next day. Plus a precognitive dream of the circumstances a week before. I didn't recollect that until I was reviewing my dream journals a few weeks later. Not an old or sick person, car accident. Talk about feelings of intense guilt.

This is why I am not dismissive of religious intentions. No doubt some people do intuit more of reality than others. And some people don't have the depth or breadth of knowledge to do more than ascribe this to the existence of a deity.

I have had a lot of prescient or precognitive experiences that defy all explanation except that there is a layer of reality beyond that which we routinely grasp. Probably due to my attitude, which is the almost reckless but certainly relentless pursuit of the unknown. I think that the "philosophical delusion" occurs when you make such experiences the focus of your thinking. I just accept them as natural events, like any other, and don't try to explain them.

What got you into philosophy? — khaled

The need to know the answer to the question, why?

I'd be lying if I said I understood what the confusion is about, but maybe if there is some more focused discussion I'll clue in.

To the intention of the OP, I found another essay on this subject by Paul Trainor; the conclusion fairly sums up what I think are the most interesting features of Absolute Presuppositions consistent with Collingwood's work:

Perhaps one of the most valuable suggestions found in Collingwood is that the kinds of persons we are, the kinds of values we embody and express, may in some elusive but nonetheless real sense, serve to test our metaphysical beliefs. They may not enable us to judge other peoples, peoples who have and do regulate their lives by other sets of absolute presuppositions, but Collingwood's work surely suggests that if we are to truly know ourselves, if we are to truly create ourselves, then the values we embody and express may serve to indirectly validate or invalidate our metaphysical beliefs.

https://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/uram.7.4.270

Philosophy is a quest for knowledge. The true quest for knowledge starts from a lack of knowledge. That's why Socrates professed to not knowing. The "presupposition" is a bias which interferes with the true quest for knowledge, because it's an assumption of already knowing certain things — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a misconstrual of the sense of these presuppositions. These presuppositions are accumulated with respect to a complete context of being in the world, underlying practical as well as theoretical activities. They are more like transcendental conditions, if anything. Nothing in this thread ever purports to rise to the discussion of knowledge. This is more basic than knowledge, it is belief.

"belief" summons something consciously assumed true — Olivier5

The primitive hunter in my example may not consciously be aware that "massive objects appear to fall a certain way in the earth's gravity field" but still base his actions upon that principle. For me, it is this "commitment to act in a certain way" which constitutes the fundamental aspect of "true belief". I think that the point at which beliefs begin to be explicitly outlined is the point at which bad faith can begin to be introduced. I would trust what people's actions reveal about their beliefs more than what they report their own beliefs to be.

This is why I have no inclination toward reading the paper. It appears to inspire all sorts of nonsense like this, which I would simply reject and have no part of. Therefore it would just be a waste of my time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which is why we're so thankful that you deigned to comment on it.

I like the term 'hidden assumption'. It's better than " elief" imo because these are not really positive beliefs, that we adhere to consciously and defend. They are more like unconscious ideas that shape our examinations but are not themselves examined. — Olivier5

:up:

Yes, but, they can be and are subject to indirect modification, insofar as they govern and determine both scientific and ordinary thinking. As is clear when Collingwood describes the various scenarios in which metaphysical and scientific thinking can be 'out of step' with each other. This misrepresentation of metaphysics (via pseudo-metaphysics, irrationalism, etc) represents a breaking down of the mechanisms around one set of absolute presuppositions in favour of another.

Well, you can be a Christian and go to the same church as your neighbour and so ostensibly ascribe to the same "moral ideology", but behave very differently in the same situation, e.g. donating to a beggar on the street, caring for a sick relative. Which only strengthens the argument that our "animating" beliefs can be different even when our situations are similar. If someone constantly acts in ways that appear to contradict his ostensible ideology that will impact credibility.

I'm not trying to prove this proposition empirically except by way of experiment. If I adopt this as
motivating hypothesis, I assume that my actions will be efficacious in a way that those motivated by an hypothesis of deceit cannot be.

What exactly is the point of this though? — Darkneos

To discover the nature of the shared presuppositions that underlie our various analytical inquiries. If we are doing metaphysics, at any rate.

With respect to the subject matter, which can be refreshed by looking at the OP, do you have any correction to make for my improvement? — tim wood

Only that you seem to comment upon interesting aspects of the text with fall squarely in the sights of my reading.

This comment

Being foundational to their respective endeavors, they're not usually matters of or for attention - why would they be? — tim wood

for example, for me leads naturally into the question posed by several philosophers, as to the relative in-excavatability of background assumptions. Which Habermas for example describes when he talks about communicative action being "embedded in lifeworld contexts that provide the backing of a massive background consensus" which is especially interesting because of its "peculiar pre-predicative and pre-categorial character, which already drew Husserl's attention in his investigations of this "forgotten" foundation of meaning inhabiting everyday practice and experience." (Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, 1.2.3)

So perhaps this pre-categorial and pre-predicative character could explain the apparent lack of fit between my description and yours. You do not believe that the pre-predicative committment is tantamount to belief. I do. I think that the primitive hunter who can nail a rodent with a long, loping throw can be said to "believe" the theory of gravity, and maybe in some sense even to "know" it better than Newton (I'm not sure how adept Newton was tossing a stone).

So perhaps look more for the possibility that what is being said actually agrees with your own point of view, rather than disagrees with it?