Well, what do you mean by "anti-foundationalism"? Is it just something like, "Truth claims are always context dependent"? If so, then we're right back to the original argument. — Leontiskos

That there is no final or ultimate ground for our knowledge, meaning, or justification. I think that's how philosophers like Rorty, Lawson, or Brandom might have it. And I appreciate that anti-foundationalism is disparaged by many.

Let's not lose sight of the central argument which is this:

But if you are speaking from a single context, and that single context does not encompass all contexts, then you are not permitted to make claims about all contexts. And yet you did.

You contradict yourself because you say something like, "Truth claims are always context dependent." This means, "Every truth claim, in every context, is context dependent." It is a claim that is supposed to be true in every context, and therefore it is not context dependent. If you want to avoid self-contradiction you would have to say something like, "Truth claims are sometimes context dependent." But that's obviously less than what you want to say.
— Leontiskos — Leontiskos

As I understand it, this objection misunderstands the claim. Saying "truth claims are always context-dependent" is a way of describing how claims function within particular social, historical, and conceptual contexts. This description is itself situated and arises from those contexts. I'm, nto sure there's a contradiction in making this statement because it does not claim to exist outside or above context. The objection only seems persuasive if one assumes that all claims must be judged from a perspective beyond any context, but anti-foundationalism does not make that assumption.

From our observations of animal behavior it is undeniable that animals perceive all the same things in the environment as we do, but we can safely infer in (sometimes very) different ways according to the different structures of their sense modalities. — Janus

Indeed although they clearly don’t understand them the way we do, so while they might recognize the same shapes and perhaps risks as us, I’m not sure what that tells us about shared meaning. Thompson is not an idealist as I udnertand him.

But saying “everything comes from social practices and chance factors” doesn’t mean we’reclaiming to stand outside of all that.
— Tom Storm

It would be a bit like the fish saying, "Everything is water." If the fish knew that everything was water then he would not be bound by water. The metaphor about fish and water has to do with the idea that what is literally ubiquitous is unknowable. — Leontiskos

This is getting very meta. :wink:

Doesn't your fish and water objection assume that being immersed in something makes it unknowable? Doesn't Thompson’s view suggest the opposite? That our immersion is what makes understanding possible. We are always situated within social practices and contingent factors, but this situatedness doesn’t block insight, it creates or enables it. (I assume this is basic to phenomenology?) Recognizing that “everything comes from social practices and chance factors” is a reflective awareness that arises through our engagement with world, not from standing outside it. Being “bound by water” does not make the water invisible; it is the medium through which we come to know it. Or something like that?

I'm now getting dizzy with the curlicues of argument.

The broader question to me seems to be, is anti-foundationalism a foundation? Is it a performative contradiction? I suspect it isn’t on the basis that anti-foundationalism is more a lens or a stance toward foundations than a foundation itself. It discourages the search for an ultimate grounding, but offers no ultimate principle to stand on.

I'd be interested to hear your take on this particularly.

Thanks. Nicely articulated. I’m not done yet, but I have a meeting.

if he’s right, that’s great, I like different views to my own even if I can’t get on board.

But saying “everything comes from social practices and chance factors” doesn’t mean we’reclaiming to stand outside of all that. It actually denies that anyone can stand outside it.

Doesn’t this objection get contingency wrong? Calling something “contingent” doesn’t mean you’re looking at it from some perfect, fixed viewpoint. You’re just using the language and ideas that come from within the same messy, changeable world you’re talking about. You don’t need a god-like perspective to say things are contingent.

We now arrive at the question, is antifoundationalism itself a foundation?

Thanks. Do you recall if there was a thread on intuition? I seem to have a memory of this.

Yes, I would say connected. Everything arises from social practices and contingent factors; the possibilities of our experiencing anything, perception, our bodies, and the way we experience the world are all shaped by these conditions. But this is not my area of expertise I think @Joshs is a professional on these matters. My interest/knowledge is limited.

More simply, if you say, "Truth claims are always context-dependent," then you've contradicted yourself, because you are uttering a truth claim that you believe is not context-dependent. This sort of self-contradiction is inevitable for anyone who tries to make reason non-universalizing. — Leontiskos

You make a common enough criticism of Thompson's position (and I guess that of many pragmatists and post-modernists) and it is a good one. All I can say is I don’t see it as a contradiction, because I’m not claiming (nor would Thompson) to step outside all contexts while saying this. I’m saying it from inside my own experience, and the claim includes itself. For me, truth isn’t something we reach from a perfect, universal viewpoint; it’s something we work out from where we stand. So when I say truth claims are context-dependent, I’m also saying this one is too. That doesn’t make it collapse, it just admits that I’m part of the same situation I’m talking about. The supposed contradiction only appears if we assume every truth claim has to speak from nowhere and apply everywhere, and I don’t accept that assumption. I’m trying to identify how truth actually shows up for us in lived life, not to lay down a rule that pretends to escape that life.

My understanding is that Thompson sees reason as emerging from our everyday experience and the ways we engage with the world, not from a detached, universal viewpoint. We develop our thinking through action, conversation, and the practices we inherit. He rejects the notion that this makes him a relativist: being aware that reasoning is 'situated' doesn’t mean all ideas are equally valid or that anything goes. On the contrary, some ways of thinking are better than others, and we can test, refine, and improve our ideas through experience, dialogue, and careful reflection. Thompson would probably acknowledge that reasoning is grounded in context but this doesn’t weaken it, it makes it more honest, responsible, and connected to how we actually understand and navigate the world.

Now I understand well that if a person holds an essentialist view of the world, in which reason accesses certain universal truths, then this view will be unsatisfying. This would be your view?

I’m not a philosopher, and I don’t mind being a creature of my time. Can you explain in simple terms why Thompson might be wrong? I suspect we don’t share certain key axioms, which might make a discussion difficult to navigate.

:up: :up:

I need to listen to those.

I find what I can understand of his perspective very sympathetic to my own intuitions, but that only speaks to my own prejudice. It is hard material to fully comprehend, like most phenomenology. I am happy to lurk on the outer boundaries, occasionally catching an insight.

I always loved the opening title sequence too.

I'd probably share Evan Thompson's view that reason is situated, embodied, enactive and emerges from our lived, affective engagement with the world. Reason is not a detached faculty that can apprehend universal truths on its own; it’s shaped by biology, culture, experience. Truth claims therefore are always embedded in context, practice, and perspective.

Ha! Well, reason is just a tool, the atheists and the theists often assume they can demonstrate the superiority of their metaphysics with reason. They can certainly use it to give a sheen to their prejudices, but to what extent is it merely a post hoc rationalization of affective commitments? But I am not saying we can avoid its use, as this paragraph partly demonstrates.

Ha! We don’t need a structured show for this. It’s probably more about putting cameras in real world hot spots. For a tame example, look at what YouTube makes of Philadelphia.

I think human beings are always ready for barbarism, it’s one of our capacities, along with empathy and compassion. Some of the biggest criminals I have met have been among the most generous. Sentimentality and cruelty go together. Anyway a lot of sci fi stories seem to have taken this plot as a modern day version of the coliseum.

Interesting points. Do you hold a similar view about reason? I fell out of love with reason some years ago.

I think life is more complicated for many people than you do. Which is fine. I'm not going to change your mind, so there is little point in bothering. — Malcolm Parry

Good point. Some people are happy to judge others from the warm fug of ignorance. I’ve certainly done this myself.

I’ve known many career criminals, some bikies and gang members. Many of them, from what I have seen, didn’t have much of a chance from the start. Would I hesitate to shoot one if I had to? Probably not. But that doesn’t remove my feelings of sympathy, even if it’s qualified.

So how do you understand an ideology that says a certain race or group of people must be wiped out for the good of the world? Is this merely a point of view? Does it only become evil when the ideology is put into practice?

I can see why you went in this direction, but that wasn’t exactly what I intended. What I was really trying to say, albeit unclearly, is that reason is often used as a post hoc justification for how people feel. When other factors like destiny, religion, or politics are added, it can become dangerous. But what I really wanted to highlight is that the Nazis reasoned their actions were in the world’s best interests; they believed they were the good guys.

Is it really that simple, though? The partially-disrobed homeless dude on the corner believes he has reason and destiny on his side. So, respectfully, it's far more complex and substantial than that one requirement of self-confidence or self-delusion. — Outlander

No. I am not arguing that delusion is an issue. I said reason and destiny. Not madness and destiny.

By the way, Hitler was a homeless dude (in your words) in Vienna for some years and used to rant in public spaces, much to the embarrassment of others (Ian Kershaw's great book Hubris). Amongst other things, it was his reasoning that eventually made him attractive to others.

Why are libraries full of lifetimes of wisdom and virtue empty yet arenas of combat and near-death cheap entertainment full at any given moment? Ask yourself that. And you'll find out something about yourself you did not wish to know. — Outlander

It's best not to presume what others here know or don't know about themselves on a forum. My local library is massively busy, and I am not sure what you mean by an 'arena of conflict'. But the idea that people prefer circuses to intellectual pursuits is perfectly reasonable and conventional notion. How does this relate to my point?"

Not sure if this is relevant, but I've often held that the notion of evil depends heavily on perspective and motivated reasoning. Many years ago, I met a couple of old former Nazis. They told me how, in their view, the world had been taken over by great evil, and how those “forces of evil” had destroyed Hitler’s beneficial plan to transform humanity into a great force for good. “One day our time will come again,” one of them concluded, followed by a sermon about how truth and goodness will always win out over evil (and other heavily derived Christian notions).

Clearly, most of those who think they are serving reason or truth, God or science believe they are doing good, no matter how harmful their actions may be in practice. Which reminds me that the most dangerous people in the world are probably those who think they have reason and destiny on their side.

I resent I'm not as metaphysically street smart as they are. — baker

It almost sounds like you resent the fact you are not immoral in an immoral world?

How about we follow the money and suggest that what is going on is not a politization of institutionalized religion, nor a corruption -- but a correct, exact, adequate presentation of religion/spirituality.

That when we look at religious/spiritual institutions and their practitioners, we see exactly what religion/spirituality is supposed to be. — baker

Does this mean you are anti-relgion?

I think that’s actually a keen insight.

Thank you; that’s very succinct and helpful.

If one wishes to be an excellent human being then they must have the virtues, and the virtues are had by practice or familiarity. Then, for Aristotle happiness is had via excellence, but excellence is not sought as a means to the end of happiness. It's almost as if Aristotle would say that happiness is excellence seen in a particular light. For a simple example, the man who is an excellent soccer player is brought joy by playing soccer, but the joy and the activity of playing soccer well aren't really two different things. It's not as if he plays soccer well and then goes to the sideline to wait for someone to bring him his joy as a reward. — Leontiskos

Nice.

I'm not sure I would call Aristotle a "naturalist." That seems not only anachronistic, but perhaps also incorrect. I don't see a lack of transcendence in Aristotle, even if his idea of God was not the Christian God. He does admittedly distinguish the practical man and his moral virtues from the philosopher and his contemplation, but the contemplation of the philosopher looks to be "transcendent." — Leontiskos

This is a very interesting point. For Aristotle, how does the practical man provide a foundation for his virtue if not through contemplation?”

I can see why you’d say that, but as it says in Matthew, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” That sentiment applies equally to politics and religion. It’s a fair question to pose: if religion is a superior alternative to the secular, where might it be found operating in a way that appropriately demonstrates this? And I am open to the fact that this can be demonstrated.

Obviously, many people have been gravely hurt by the religions. The history of religion in historical Europe is marred by episodes of appalling violence and repression - the Inquisition, the slaughter of the Cathars, the religious wars. — Wayfarer

Is there a religion in the present era that exemplifies the good?

Right, but I think there is a quite robust argument to be made that it is secularism and liberalism that has spawned fundamentalism, elevated fideism, etc. The two are not unrelated. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, it's a fairly frequently made argument and I think it's a reasonable point It's often argued that fundamentalism is a reaction to modernity. That's certainly Karen Armstrong's take.

Invoking the specter of Christian nationalism here might thus be likened to invoking the threat of Stalinism to oppose the New Deal in that, arguably, the New Deal actually made a sort of American Stalinism less, not more likely precisely because it addressed the issues that motivated Stalinism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I would have thought that white Christian nationalism is one of the strong groups behind the current US President. Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation by Kristin Kobes Du Mez charts this influence across 75 years. Interestingly she's a Christian herself and deeply concerned. I think she would agree with Hart that it's closer to a heretic cult. And the false teaching you referenced above.

Isn't it the case though, that almost everyone already agrees about what is morally right when it comes to the really significant moral issues such as murder, rape, theft, exploitation, torture and so on? — Janus

Perhaps. But isn’t it also the case that religious and political groups will hold beliefs that allow for those things - think underaged marriage, wife burning, execution of gay people, use of extraordinary rendition under Bush, corporate exploitation of workers, etc. It’s not hard to imagine medieval style initiatives becoming more popular with MAGA for instance.

But now I understand that eudaimonia is objective. :up: — javi2541997

I'm not confident it is. The idea of human flourishing is dependant upon whose version of eudaimonia one privileges. Eudaimonia is objective only if, like Aristotle or the Stoics, say, one believes in a fixed human nature or function that defines flourishing but without such a foundation, as in most modern views, it becomes subjective, reflecting personal or cultural values rather than an objective standard. Which follows the debate on a number of subjects on this forum - essentialists versus non-essentialist positions.

Ok. Maybe you’re an optimist then. Firstly, I think this is entertainment and it doesn’t have an ultimate moral. But if I had to provide a reading, it looks to me like this: if you turn to crime, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, how clever your plans; or how methodical you are, your life will become a living hell; you will be hollowed out on the inside, estranged from everyone you love, and you will die scorned and alone.

I’m not really sure I see the issue. Storytelling (set aside media) has always promoted the extension of our choices and options. One of the first novels, Don Quixote satirises this by demonstrating some absurd outcomes.

What does BB do that Shakespeare or Hollywood or Bret Easton Ellis haven’t done?

That there is bad religion, and it's worse than no religion. — Wayfarer

Maybe. The quesion I keep asking is if there's a big hole in modernity, just who chooses what we fill it with? We can’t just overthrow the status quo without expecting that even worse alternatives may be waiting in the wings to fill the void. As Žižek has said, “the problem with the revolution is the morning after."

My view would be that most people can tell the differnce between entertainment and the world they live in and most do the right thing in life. Maybe it's different where you live.

It doesn't beg the question. — Wayfarer

Oops, typo - should have written, "it raises the quesion".

I'm not seeking to revive Christianity so much as the 'sense of the sacred', in light of which human life and suffering are meaningful and intelligible, and not just something to be borne, Sisyphus-like. As I've said already, it's why I've always sought the cosmic dimension in philosophy. As one of my analytic philosophy heros, Thomas Nagel, put it: — Wayfarer

Sure but this isn't just about you and your individual take on the meaning crisis. How do we approach those who seek a Christian worldview as a solution? Surely, what counts as Christianity is a crucial question that comes directly out of the meaning crisis and the questions you keep positing.

You may not seek to impose a white nationalist Christian theocracy on the world, but many who benefit from undermining liberalism and secular culture certainly do.

This isn’t just a shadow side of faith; it is faith at work.

As it happens, I was in a bookshop in October looking at DB Hart’s translation of the New Testament when a couple of fellow browsers asked me about the text. They were young Christians and we got talking. And guess what? In their view, liberalism had failed, Nietzsche was right about the death of God, secular culture had collapsed, and people were flailing in contemporary culture because their lives lacked a spiritual dimension. The solution: Christianity and Trumpism.

I know what you think of this, but I’m more interested in understanding how we can assess the merits of the spiritual beliefs some people propose as an alternative to secular culture. Who's going to be the door bitch?

Don't you think this has become the norm for us today? Success is already the highest good. In pursuing success, sacrifices can be made, as long as they are acceptable. This is called "collateral damage." For many contemporaries, this has evolved into a willingness to do any dirty work, as long as it is paid fairly. — Astorre

No. I think it is important to separate entertainment from what most people do.

He argues we need to recognise this transformation if we’re to assess religion’s legacy honestly, whilst also acknowledging that Christian culture has its faults and shadow sides. For sure it wasn't always beneficial but it demonstrably was foundational to the formation of Western culture. — Wayfarer

It interests me that Hart has called fundamentalist Protestant Christianity (as is practiced widely in the US and throughout MAGA lands) a cult and heresy. Which is not hard to see. But it does beg the question what counts as the real thing? Ultimately the idea of Christian culture means many different things, from Nationalist bigotry to rainbow flag diversity. A belief in transcendence of itself doesn’t really say much.

I’m interested in why you think we should acknowledge Christianity’s impact on our history. In what sense do we need to do this as we move forward and deal with tribalism, authoritarianism and climate change? I would imagine that your belief is that modern culture had borrowed the values without the teleology and transcendence that gave them meaning. Does this in your view lead straight to Vervaeke, et al?

Hence, my worldview is scientific, secular and vegan. What is your worldview? How do you justify your worldview? — Truth Seeker

I live by my intuition and don't really justify my views. I am an atheist and tend to hold simple minded pragmatic positions on most subjects. For now I hold that reality isn’t fixed or fully knowable. Our experience of the world is shaped by the ways we interpret and describe it, and probably not by any underlying objective structure. We can never capture the “whole truth” because reality is always more complex than any explanation. I try to focus instead on understanding the limits of my knowledge and the frameworks I use to make sense of the world.

The idea for this post arose from a conversation about a local TV series centered around the justice system: it meticulously depicts abuses of power by law enforcement officers, a judge masturbating under his robes, and bribes, bribes, bribes.

Of course, in the end, as the genre dictates, justice is restored, but again, it's not because of the officials' vices, but simply because of accidents or technical errors.

And I'm talking about a disconnect here. A kind of cultural fracture: you won't be punished for your vices, but for an accident you miscalculated. So, it doesn't matter how bad you are; what matters is how sensible and prudent you are. — Astorre

Are you simply saying that some stories explore complex moral problems and that the outcomes are unsatisfying from your moral perspective?

1. The majority of screen time in such "masterpieces" is dedicated to the aestheticization and heroization of the sinner; the moral justification of atrocities.
2. The reckoning is presented as a "nod to the genre" or a payment for the right to glorify crime.
3. Punishment, even if inevitable, is perceived as the completion of the drama, as an atonement for all future sinners, and not as retribution. — Astorre

Isn’t Breaking Bad kind of old-fashioned storytelling? Crime doesn't pay. In real life, the “bad guy” might well succeed with little cost to themselves or their families. And sometimes they even become president.

You’ve identified ideas like retribution and the moral justification of atrocities. Wasn’t Breaking Bad really about a man who made a moral choice that led him to a point of no return and the loss of everything? To me it was a more nuanced way to provide a standard “say no to drugs” and “don’t commit crime” message.

From an aesthetic or dramatic perspective, the show plays off a “fish out of water” story, where desperate situations lead to desperate choices and profound personal transformations. People find these matters compelling viewing.

Here’s my question for you: should Breaking Bad have been made, or is it glamorising immoral behavior?

This is a particularly interesting subject.