But empirical observation doesn’t amount to metaphysical insight. That’s the crucial distinction. — Wayfarer

The hard part is working out what counts as metaphysical insight if we are locked in to a world of appearances and cognitive limitations.

However this was later addressed in Kant's famous 'answer to Hume'. Very briefly (and literally thousands of volumes have been written about it) according to Kant, causality is not an empirical concept at all - that is, it is not derived from experience - but a necessary condition of experience. It is one of the categories of the understanding by which we make sense of experience. In other words, we do not derive our knowledge of causality from experience; rather, we bring our concept of causality to experience, which allows us to understand and interpret experience. — Wayfarer

This is a tantalizing notion and you can't help wondering, if we add (as Kant does) space and time to our cognitive apparatus, what is it we are 'really' able to apprehend about the the world via empiricism? Are the regularities we seem to observe part of the universe or a part of us? How are we to understand the capacity to make predictions work in such a context?

My only point is that rejecting Krauss does not mean there must be a god. — Banno

Indeed. Many atheists (Massimo Pigliacci, Susan Haack, for two) bemoan Krauss' lack of philosophical knowledge and his crude reasoning.

The difference between science fiction and the reality of our intelligent machines is that our own agency and consciousness isnt the result of a device in the head, but is an ecological system that is inseparably brain, body and environment. Our AI inventions belong to our own ecological system as our appendages, just like a spider’s web or a bird’s nest. — Joshs

Nice. Can't help but find this a fascinating and useful insight. Do you think the day will come when we can produce an AI creation that is closer to being an ecological system?

Gore Vidal made the same point decades ago -

“There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”

I don't think this is just an American issue. Those 'small adjustments' for disadvantaged people keep some voters interested and make some differences to lives on the ground.

I find that most but few atheistic mindsets often lean towards a nihilistic way of life. Nothing matters, morality itself being man made can even equal that of scripture in its basic tenets however the higher forms of expression are alien to the atheist such as the creation of art or meaningful literature. — invicta

The atheists I've encountered are often insufferable moralists, hectoring people about what is right and wrong, based on secular values, such as Sam Harris' 'wellness of conscious creatures' stick from The Moral Landscape. I have yet to meet an atheist who can commit to nihilism or will deny moral behaviour in practice. They are generally way too bound up in encultured values and beliefs. The only true nihilists I've known are dead. Suicide.

some of our questions cannot by answered by reason alone or even science which aims to probe the very fabric of reality itself, always falling short in its noble endeavour by the simple fact that our comprehension can never transcend it even for want of trying. — invicta

I think this is fair.

I read the OP as Make Philosophy Great Again ! — plaque flag

Definitely one possible reading, or Make Yesterday Today Again!

Yesterday being a kind of romantic Panglossian reconstruction. The notion of Golden Eras we have lost seems to haunt multiple subcultures these days, from mawkish Youtube comments on Elvis, to speculative historicisms by certain academics.

We've been lost in the pluralitistic rubble since the infallible popes ? — plaque flag

And of course, the contrapuntal argument is that in the Islamic world and (many other places) notions of transcendent certainty continue rule politics and culture like it's 1300 CE. Humans almost seem to have a certainty death wish.

:up: that's it I think. It's a veritable supermarket of isms and schisms.

I can see that. It's yin and yang... to purloin an Eastern term. :wink:

transcendence and Idealism rear their ugly heads
— Joshs

that says a lot. — Wayfarer

I suspect that Joshs was using terminology like this in quotations.

This suggests that the issue is also political. — plaque flag

Political and aesthetic.

Philosophy never made such promisses. — Wayfarer

I guess there is no Philosophy to make any such promises, only particular philosophies.

And how to arbitrate that, hmmm? Peer-reviewed double-blind lab studies? Questionnaires and surveys? — Wayfarer

Like many issues in philosophy, undecidable.

Read Bertrand Russell's 'A Free Man's Worship', one of his early philosophical polemics and still a canonical statement of that outlook. The reason Eastern or eastern-inspired philosophies have a following is because they put back into the world what the Enlightenment abstracted away from it. — Wayfarer

Could well be the case. But this doesn't address whether or not there actually is transcendent meaning or value. It might just tell us that people have a psychological need for and perhaps demand 'fairytales' and otherworldly narratives. Perhaps a way of managing the fear of life and death. What if Russell is right and what if the push back towards idealism, New Age and Eastern thought are just a reflection that people can't handle the truth? :wink:

Is your personal ambition the same quality as the kind of ambition present in the wording?

I think paragraphs would be helpful, this slab of text is hard to read.

Very often philosophy is thought of in the light of the question "what is the meaning of life?". I would rather ask "what is the purpose of life?". — Average

From my perspective those questions seem a bit ambitious, with a focus on utility. I don't think in terms of meaning or purpose but I can answer what I prefer to do with my life. How I prefer to spend my time.

I suspect meaning or purpose is more of a by product of the choices you make, but not something you seek in itself. And what is meaningful to me may not be meaningful to others - in this way meaning is an abstraction which has no intrinsic qualities.

:clap:


Professor Chomsky - have any recent findings and understandings in neuroscience enhanced or modified your understanding of the innate structures in human brains which allow us to acquire language?

That’s the whole question isn’t it? — Wayfarer

Well for adherents it is not a question, it's a faith. But I wonder how people who are not enlightened themselves can recognise revealed wisdom in old books?

General term - applies to the Bible, Koran, Bhaghavad Gita, for example — Wayfarer

How would we know if they were revealed truth?

In the same manner, we can have faith in God by reasoning well. — Epicero

What's an example of good reasoning which leads to theism? Are you thinking along the lines of Aquinas' five ways?

If logic aids us toward the truth, then we should use logic to pursue the truth. — Epicero

What's your definition of truth?

It seems mistaken that we would be unable to utilize this tool to come to the belief in God. I would argue that everyone reasons their way to faith, and It is merely a matter of difference in how well the reasoning is done. We cannot escape reasoning as we are rational creatures. — Epicero

It's not clear to me what you are arguing. Reasoning can get you anywhere you want to go, from Islam to scientism. The real trick is how we establish if the reasoning is sound.

Secular culture will generally begin by assuming that revealed truth and sacred lore are not to be believed as a matter of principle. — Wayfarer

Yes, I guess that's why they call it secular. I'm not unsympathetic to secular culture - I have no good reason to think that the idea of a revealed truth or sacred law are of any use to anyone except, perhaps, as some aesthetic (not ascetic) mode of living, or as historical curiosities. Can you identify an example of a revealed truth so I can understand what you are thinking of?

Secular culture like theistic culture can come in grotesque forms and distortions.

Ok. I thought you were asking a different question.

What function do the memories of my brother serve — Andrew4Handel

I'd say we developed memory because it had significant utility - remembering what was safe to eat, what caused sickness sand death, how to stay safe from predators, etc. Recognizing friend from foe, family from stranger requires memory too. No doubt memory has a range of other utilities that allows humans to plan, strategize, nurture, survive. The bonus is that you have early memories of siblings, parents, friends.

Most "Christians" don't have the vaguest knowledge about some of the things their "lord and master" said. — Art48

Indeed. Sounds like we are in agreement.

Is it possible some philosophers when writing run out of ideas, but continue writing? :chin: — jgill

Hard to imagine that they don't, given it happens to so many writers, journalists, politicians, artists, etc. Almost anyone who earns a living by trying to stay relevant, eventually ends up as depleted currency.

You're right but that's religion in a nutshell, a community of folk who often know little about their traditions. That's why there are priests and pastors to gatekeep the material.

But how do we avoid a No True Scotsman fallacy on this?

I personally hold to the view that a Christian is anyone who believes they are a Christian. No matter how twisted or emasculated the faith might seem to someone else. After all, Christians have counted among their adherents Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu and cheerful members of the KKK. Contradiction and absurdity are every bit as connected to faith traditions as prayer and worship.

Selves also are almost logical absolutes. The tradition of a ghost in the machine of the body, which is held responsible for telling a coherent story, seems unavoidable. A culture without selves like this would be like a culture without wheels or fire. It's a technology so basic we think it came from god. — plaque flag

That's a cool way of framing things.

:up:

(Still feel as though the point I was labouring has somewhat slipped the net here.) — Wayfarer

Could be.

Standard readings of mathematical claims entail the existence of mathematical objects. But, our best epistemic theories seem to deny that knowledge of mathematical objects is possible.

Why is this? Because apparently our 'best epistemic theories' include the assumption that

human beings [are] physical creatures whose capacities for learning are exhausted by our physical bodies.

Whereas,

Some philosophers, called rationalists, claim that we have a special, non-sensory capacity for understanding mathematical truths, a rational insight arising from pure thought.

The basic drift of the remainder of the article is this:

The indispensability argument in the philosophy of mathematics is an attempt to justify our mathematical beliefs about abstract objects, while avoiding any appeal to rational insight. Its most significant proponent was Willard van Orman Quine. — Wayfarer

Nicely crystalized.

On the same theme - what is your take on the notion that reason requires some kind of guarantor for it to operate. The logical absolutes; identify, non-contraction and excluded middle seem to make reason and math and this conversation possible. Muslims and Christians will, of course, argue that God is the guarantor. More complex thinkers will find other metaphysical justifications, variations of Platonism. How do you account for it?

I tend to hold that such absolutes are probably how human minds are cognitively arranged in order to make sense of reality. Do they map to 'reality'; do they operate outside of a human perspective?

Can you clarify - can you identify how a 'true believer' would behave and how you can tell if someone believes in god, other than making an inference based on what you believe you have observed?

As to not caring about what others think of my viewpoints, I don't think I am anywhere near alone there. In all my time on these forums i have rarely seen anyone change their views on account of a counterargument. — Janus

Goodness. That's interesting. Do we come here to sharpen our monomanias, perhaps? :razz:

This is an interesting matter which has range of implications and uses.

Empiricism and naturalism have an innate bias against the idea of innate knowledge (irony alert! — Wayfarer

Which is why the case of math is so interesting. Is it your contention that humans have an innate knowledge of the divine?

Whereas, I believe that the a priori reflects innate structures within the mind that are operative in the exercise of reason. — Wayfarer

Does this make you a Kantian?

I also idly speculate that the realm of necessary facts is somehow connected to an intuitive understanding of what must always be the case, in order for the world to be as it is. — Wayfarer

Interesting, can you say some more to clarify this point? Are you saying, for instance, that space/time is part of human's innate cognitive apparatus - it constructs our understanding of reality?

"What some people believe and why" is a metaphysical question, that won't be answered with empirical evidence. — Gnomon

I think you are over complicating. It is answered when they say what their beliefs are and why they believe them.

Yet, the general consensus of a Big Bang beginning, left a Big ("god") Gap to be filled by reasonable speculation — Gnomon

Or unreasonable and uneducated speculation. I am not a cosmologist and the poorly named Big Bang is of minimal interest. Anyone can read Paul Davies, Roger Penrose or Lawrence Krauss if they want a range of simplified conjecture based on expertise. I leave the matter there. :wink:

Nagel's point is that if we are to be considered rational beings, then this is because we accept the testimony of reason, not because we are compelled to do so by the requirements of adaptation, but because we can see the truth of its statements. I think it is that power to discern apodictic truths which caused the ancients to grant it a kind of quasi-religious status, and conversely the tendency to deprecate reason as simply an evolved capacity is an indicator of a kind of deep irrationality. — Wayfarer

In other words, reason suggests naturalism is false, or at least, incomplete, that there's an explanation needed to account for our preference for such self-evident truths?

I hear you :up:

Does silence bring about higher quality living? — Bret Bernhoft

Maybe. I think it’s a preference. I like silence. And I can go days without talking. I feel no benefits from it except the joy of silence itself.

Beautifully written OP and interesting that this is your perspective as someone with expertise in the field.

Everything can and will be called into question and this is mistakenly taken to be a great and wise philosophical accomplishment. In truth, it is nihilism, an impotent gasp that consoles itself for being novel. But there is nothing novel about it. — Fooloso4

I've often held that I am a reluctant post-modernist - perhaps an untheorized post-modernist. We absorb this material by osmosis (it's the era) and though other disciplines like social theory. I can't help but hold the view that reality is an act of constructionism - we can't identify absolute truth (which is likely a remnant of Greek philosophy and Christianity) and philosophical positions we might hold appear to be culturally located. This does not feel especially wise or clever to me.

I think we can still create tentative notions of 'the good' based on secular mechanisms (themselves derivatives of older philosophy) - do no harm, prevent suffering, human flourishing, etc. But epistemology and metaphysics seem to go on endlessly, with no bottom in sight, unless you decide upon a foundational position. This can be an act of defiance or faith depending upon your viewpoint.

As a non philosopher I must confess that much of what I've attempted to read in primary texts is dull and I am frequently left with the urge to compose shopping lists rather than continue. I can't be the only modern reader who finds most of the material punishing.

I've been watching the odd panel discussion by a UK organisation called the IAI, Institute of Art and Ideas, which regularly hosts debates between leading public intellectuals, scientists, and philosophers — Wayfarer

Me too. There's no question that there is a thirst for making meaning or contextualizing ourselves - even if this is desire for more theorized forms of nihilism or relativism, such as the IAI's Hilary Lawson's work on Closure (he would probably resent that description).

Would not the concept of beautiful and how one sees it depend upon one's wisdom?

In moral teachings the beautiful is often connected to the good. — Fooloso4

In people, the beautiful are often amongst our most treacherous. :razz:

That's a surprising position on a philosophy forum — Gnomon

Well, there is mysterianism which takes a similar view. But I am not a philosopher - just interested in what the themes and issues are and what some people believe and why.

What may be surprising on a philosophy forum is members who know the limitations of what they can say.

As Descartes concluded, Personal Consciousness is the only thing we know for sure — Gnomon

Can I even be sure of that? How do I know it is me doing the thinking? For instance, I have worked for many years with people who experience mental ill health - thought insertion is a common experience. Not to mention disembodied voices. The experience of these is that they are not produced by your own mind.

Those who weren't around in 1994 (in that world) can't 'get' (without serious effort ?) what grunge meant. — plaque flag

Quick digression. I have no idea what grunge meant and I was there. Nirvana, I take it? Don't know any of their music. I've never participated in popular or contemporary music or culture, so the period when I was young - 80's/90's - is a black hole of films, TV and music unconsumed, except, perhaps, through ads and cultural osmosis. We don't all inhabit the same place, even when we do. :wink:

The reasons you (and others) have for taking seriously the possibility of some supernatural claims are:

- Worldwide anecdotes and first person accounts of experiences.
- Limitations of naturalist accounts (eg mind from no mind; something from nothing; mind/body)
- Contemplative traditions and scriptural accounts.

Any personal experiences?

Can you assist me in improving the language I have used to describe these above?

We can then get back to Hegel. :wink: