"Here is one hand, and here is another, therefore there are at least two external objects, therefore an external world exists."
How the hell is this even an argument?! — darthbarracuda
Well, I am pretty much against most metaphysics by default. — Question
This seems to be a common view among atheists. I'm wondering what the opinion is on the philosophy forum? Is this a view that you share? That you tend to hear a lot? — ThePhilosopherFromDixie
You might say religions make it too easy, that the kind of truth they offer are rather too settled - 'sign here'. That's where the Platonist tradition is so interesting and still so important. Plato was determined not to be taken in by 'mere belief' but to arrive at a greater truth through the exercise of reason, which is still what distinguishes philosophy from religion as such (although there are many overlaps). But your observation of 'knowing how we know' is crucial to that. What motivates that, is something like a religious type of instinct, but again it is more questioning and more critical than what we generally take religion to be. — Wayfarer
But the dream, or goal, is what it always was: the vision of truth. — Wayfarer
If you were doing one of those tests where they asked you to identify the anomolous members of a set, then 'numbers' and 'ideas' would certainly jump out, possibly followed by 'germs' and 'atoms'. — Wayfarer
This is very well said, and I agree very much. I associate philosophy with (among other things) becoming more conscious of these judgments that function as lenses. We are free to question and possibly replace such a judgment only after we become aware that we've been taking it for granted all along as a sort of necessity. This is the value, as I see it, in questioning the question. Let's say that we assume that either nominalism or realism is correct. Would we not still need a criterion to establish the correctness of one or the other? And yet philosophy seems largely to be the endless construction, criticism, and refutation of such criteria. The dream or goal seems to be something like a self-founding or self-justifying criterion or authority.Our perceptions and conceptions are inextricably bound up with rational judgement; we see 'through' those judgements, without realising that we're doing it. That is the sense in which the elements of rational judgement inform and underlie our 'meaning-world'. — Wayfarer
Right - Peirce once described pragmatism as "scarce more than a corollary" of Alexander Bain's definition of a belief as "that upon which a man is prepared to act." — aletheist
I would probably not go quite that far. However, I do think that Peirce's characterization of inquiry as the struggle prompted by doubt, which has the fixation of belief as its goal, is analogous to ingenuity as the struggle prompted by uncertainty, which has the fixation of decision as its goal. — aletheist
Our mode of treating the subject is, in this aspect, a Theodicaea, — a justification of the ways of God, — which Leibnitz attempted metaphysically in his method, i.e. in indefinite abstract categories, — so that the ill that is found in the World may be comprehended, and the thinking Spirit reconciled with the fact of the existence of evil. — Hegel
We could do with more iconoclasm and less reverence. Plato, Aristotle, etc. were just guys with ideas and biases etc. like the rest of us. — Terrapin Station
I agree with some of Nietzsche's views--and obviously I'm an atheist and have some pomo-like views, but in my opinion Nietzsche was a horrible writer and he wasn't even a very good philosopher with respect to his methodological approach. — Terrapin Station
However I would rather believe the rationalists. — Wayfarer
The point I make is fairly simple but has profound consequences: that if numbers are indeed real, but not material, then this contradicts materialism and empiricism, as mathematical objects are precisely not object of experience, or really objects at all in the material sense. — Wayfarer
I see this as primarily a matter of cultivating practical wisdom (phronesis) - i.e., good judgment in the form of good habits of feeling (esthetics), action (ethics), and thought (logic) - rather than just intellectual wisdom (sophia). Instincts, sentiments, common sense, tradition, etc. are all better guides than philosophy for that pursuit, especially since we often have to make decisions without taking the time to work out a comprehensive theory. — aletheist
I think the most common way how people start even unintentionally to spread post truths is that the truly get attached to some political cause or event, like hatred of one political candidate in elections. Then the most damning attack against this candidate is something that the people like. Elections are the silly season typically, a time when people do get emotionally attached to things they would otherwise not be interested in. And of course, that's a good thing that people get excited about elections. Yet if a person thinks some politician is evil, then this person is quite open to post-truths that prove their case. — ssu
What does "ordinary life" have to do with philosophy? I say that only slightly tongue-in-cheek. "Ordinary life" is a matter of employing habits based largely on instincts and sentiments, rather than philosophical or even scientific theories. — aletheist
Why "other"? If you agree that cognition makes one's perception of the world entirely subjective, then who's to say these "other" human beings aren't the product of this same subjective experience?
In which case, this would be akin to asking yourself some question, but although this is indeed futile, I don't see why it's a contradiction. — hunterkf5732
No, because characterizing the subject matter of metaphysical debates as merely how to name things sounds like presupposing nominalism. — aletheist
One could argue that narcissism, which I do understand as basic human "drive," is sometimes more powerful than hunger. Humans will risk their lives over honor, reputation, status concerns. Weight-lifters kill themselves with steroids. Anorexics are of course the perfect example of narcissism overpowering hunger.Surely self-esteem is not as important a drive as hunger? Would you say then that self-esteem or some form of narcissism must always exist in every human being? — hunterkf5732
This is exactly how I see it, too.We maintain our current beliefs until such anomalies create the irritation of genuine doubt, which compels us to undertake inquiry in an effort to reestablish the equilibrium of stable beliefs. — aletheist
So my claim is that life in general is just like the decision to be a soldier or an adrenaline junky, in virtue of the fact that life has the potential to be quite horribly painful. Just as we would not willingly go to the front lines for no good reason, we would not (if we were unbiased and perfectly rational) decide to continue to exist in general for our own sake. An objective evaluation of life would result in the conclusion that, no matter how good you're feeling right now, the future is unknown and has dangerous possibilities, possibilities that cannot be countered by future possible pleasurable moments. Future pleasure is not guaranteed, and escape from horrible pain isn't either.
The decision to continue existing is not rational (indeed it seems that a great deal of people simply persist through life without any real overarching reason). In fact, most people probably don't even "decide" to continue existing, they just do. The decision to continue existing cannot be rational or self-interested. It must be from something greater than the self, such as a dedication to a country, or a religion, or science (a modern priesthood, warranted or not), or an ethical code. — darthbarracuda
One can see the torture that one goes through when confronting one's self with having/maintaining a high sense of self-esteem. — Question
Someone said this to me today that "when you break it all down everything is futile".
Instinctively I said yes but is there not some leeway in terms of perspective?
Is this argument purely about processes we observe and participate in in life or are all processes ends in themselves and are therefore unable to be termed futile as futility is a human construct design to determine the value of any given thing. — intrapersona
Is there a link between social conservatism and religion, and if so, why? — Agustino
Why do we need to create people so they can do something? So basic, but no one really has a good answer, without sounding like a smug, arrogant prick. — schopenhauer1
But philosophers are still unable to determine whether life is worth living or not. — lambda
We do not need a reason to believe that we are not dreaming, that our cognitive faculties are reliable, that we are truly morally responsible for our actions, that the people around us are conscious, and that the walls of our rooms continue to exist when we are not experiencing them. Our common-sense instincts justify these beliefs, such that we would need a compelling reason in order to doubt any of them. — aletheist
I've been making an attempt to talk about it w/ a group I've been drinking coffee w/ in the mornings. Does anyone else talk about philosophy w/ people not already interested? — anonymous66
Could you name something we have access to, which is not subjective? — hunterkf5732
What I think we can say instead is that if our models do not represent something real, then eventually they will produce results that are in conflict with our experience. — aletheist
Reliable results are meaningless unless those reliable results can be used for further ends. That is why reliable results are just the means to ends. To produce reliable results is not an end in itself. Suppose I could accurately predict winning lottery numbers. Unless someone is to act on these "reliable results", this would be nothing more than an interesting party trick. It is what the reliable results are used for , which is important here. And. it all depends on what is wanted, what is the end, that dictates the type of reliable results which we seek. Depending on what we are doing, we might want reliable results in weather predictions, stock market predictions, whatever.
So this generality "reliable results" cannot be an end itself, because it is always used for something further. Furthermore, this "something further", which is desired, dictates where we will be seeking reliable results. So for instance, what is wanted, dictates whether we will be seeking reliable results with respect to the weather tomorrow, the strength of the concrete poured in the bridge, the size of the furnace installed in the house, etc.. Reliable results is dependent on what is wanted. — Metaphysician Undercover
But what the irrational nature of pi demonstrates is that there is no such thing as the aggregate of possible points equidistant from a single point. That single point which is supposed to be the centre of the circle, with equal lines to the circumference, is non-existent, just like the point where a tangent is supposed to meet the arc of a circle, is non-existent as well. Simply put, the curved line is incompatible with the straight line.. — Metaphysician Undercover
It depends on what you mean by "exist." — aletheist