I think there's a lot of truth in that. But some goals like this are ultra hard to achieve and I opt out on the grounds of insufficient information, time, opportunity, capability. As Harry Callahan said - 'A man's got to know his limitations.'

ideas and theories always exist in larger contexts, and it isn't always about what we perceive as internal consistency, is it? — Pantagruel

Agree. I think for many people philosophy has a broad aim of providing coherence and integration, but as humans we are not overly coherent and integrated. I personally don't find the metaphor of 'ultimate truth' or the Kantian style 'reality as it is itself' useful and am not really looking for that angle. Which means there will be gaps between myself and those who do think in terms of ultimate truth. Whether those gaps lead to disputation and acrimony remains to be seen. This is where civility is most tested it seems to me (and in politics, but isn't that often a variation of ultimate reality - a contest of metanarratives?)

It all goes back to what one hopes to accomplish through talking.
I think talking is mostly overrated anyway. — baker

Agree.

What do you think of these thoughts? — Bug Biro

Lots of people have made similar arguments over the years. I think it was Orwell who said that the norms of one culture might look insane next to the norms of another. Ditto for people. Moving away form the idea of what is insane and what is normal we might be better served by asking what behaviors help or harm the community? We then get into morality and politics and debate reigns supreme. There's no correlation between sanity/normality and being nice.

Based on some recent intrigues, I'd like to pose the question, do you feel an obligation to treat someone respectfully in a philosophical discussion? — Pantagruel

Yes. I very much prefer polite, abuse free discourse. I have rarely seen disrespect serve the interests of an argument. Sound reasoning is unaided by calling someone a moron or grotesquely impugning motivations. That said, people come from different worldviews, cultures and sensitivities, what may be intended as a conversation in good faith may be perceived as unreasonable. Sometimes people become enraged by phrases or approaches which for them hold special resonance (in a bad way). And sometimes we are rude without intending to be. This can then provoke reactions and you know the rest...

So I would say that the difference is a difference of "world view". Science takes from the inside (theory), and applies what is taken from the inside, to the outside (practise). The application effectively proves and disproves what has been given by the inside, and this is the scientific method. Scientism denies the importance of the inside, insisting that the scientific method is all that is required for the existence of knowledge, thereby creating a blind spot for itself, its reliance on the inside. So science does not create the blind spot, nor does science reject dualism, it's the scientistic philosophy which rejects dualism, dissolving the difference between inside and outside, thereby producing a philosophical (not a scientific) blind spot. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your argument is interesting but I'm not sure I properly understand it - perhaps because it doesn't entirely mesh with my innate skeptical pragmatism. But differences of opinion don't phase me too much.

Science has limitations - as do most approaches. I wouldn't recommend prayer to manage diabetes or science to mend a broken heart - although there might be evidence based therapeutic modalities that can assist. :wink:

So it is completely incorrect to assume that science is the more reliable path towards understanding reality because it only has a method toward understanding a part of reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree to some extent, but most of the folk I know who privilege science would say it allows us to understand the aspects of reality humans have capability to understand, (or access to) not 'ultimate reality' - which is a different speculative metaphysical postulate. And science is an approach which develops and morphs.

What do you propose to be kinds of knowledge about reality we can attain without science? How would this apply to the hard question proposed here? Can you provide any examples? I'm assuming (from your description of inside derived knowledge) you are referring to higher awareness type directions.

Having a blind spot, what I described as having a weakness, is not necessarily a problem though. So long as we all recognize our own weaknesses and we work around them, the weakness is not a problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is it intrinsic to this particular blind spot that its enactors are often blind to it being a blind spot? Is this when a blind spot bites? When it is not recognized as a limitation?

he scientist, just like everyone else in the world is confronted with problems which are not scientific problems. I.e., many problems we face cannot be solved with the scientific method. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's true and unless you're unremittingly scientistic, that would be well understood. Not many actual scientists seem to be members here, but there are a number of folk who consider science to be a more reliable pathway to understanding 'reality' than many other approaches. Where is the line drawn? Seems to be about where you think reality begins and ends.

When it comes to the hard problem of consciousness it seems to me difficult to determine who's territory this really is. And whether it is an actual thing. I am somewhat ambivalent and I recognize that like most I have no specialized knowledge with which to enhance my intuitive understanding of the matter.

It does seem to me that this problem either clicks with people or does not click. What exactly is the difference? Is it world view or experience or an actual blind spot?

Nice work. :clap:

My old tutor at university, Stephen Priest, once said to me "Some of my colleagues haven't noticed they are conscious." I didn't take him seriously at the time. I thought it was absurd, these guys were smart guys. But I'm reluctantly coming to the view that he was right. It seems like the only realistic explanation for what is happening. — bert1

Are you saying 180 proof and I lack awareness, or lack the concept of awareness, or what? And how do you know this? What basis do you have for your claim? — Banno

It's sounding and playing out a bit like a discussion about religious faith from where I am sitting.

To
Agent Smith
C/O TPF
The Internet



Dear Mr Smith,

Πάντ' ἀγαθὰ πράττω, ὦ φίλε.

Mr Aristoteles (Ἀριστοτέλης) has asked me to let you know how much he appreciated your well wishes and modest idea. As you may imagine, he receives many letters from admirers, cranks, poe-faced Scholastics, cardigan wearing academic bores, and dipsomaniacal metaphysicians every day of the year and can't possibly reply in person to all.

He wishes to let you know that in his latest discovery, the human brain is really just a ventilation system to help us to dispense with extra heat. Note, it's not the same with slaves, who are inferior beasts and women who are even more inferior and also have fewer teeth than men.

Ithi eutukhēs!

Paris Drakos
PA to Ἀριστοτέλης

And of course being conscious is different to being unconscious. — Banno

I've been both and I can attest to this.

Somehow we almost always seems to arrive back at qualia. I don't really have a dog in this fight but I also think it is not so easy to determine the answer. Humans are susceptible to illusions and personal biases. I know I am.

What would you need in order to see justification for an idea like qualia or an idea there there is something to experience consciousness/metacognition? What is missing in the discussion?

That's very nicely argued.

Also, some have more need to read and think about philosophy if common sense and various ideas encountered seem inadequate or contradictory. — Jack Cummins

Yes, and experiencing trauma and profound unhappiness may also propel one towards philosophy in the age old question to try to establish a 'why'.

A fair assessment. I think it's important to consider too that everyone is different and draws energy from different activities. Some people may not have an aptitude for philosophy (I would probably class myself here). I think to do it well requires some capabilities and probably some solid reading so as not to reinvent the wheel. I think @Banno has made the point a few times that philosophy is hard. It's not just having untheorized opinions or monomaniacal personal theories.

Do you think societal health is increasing or not? Why or why not? — Baden

Probably impossible to measure but I can only go by my own view which is, of course, subjective and situational. But I think it is better than it was when I was young. I meet a lot of young people through my work and my daughter, who is 25. They appear happier, nicer and more socially engaged than the people I knew when I was that age and even the young of, say, 20 years ago. I see much more meaningful involvement in politics and social change. Less substance abuse. So many more creative ways for self-expression. A banal monolithic mainstream culture no longer rests heavily upon their shoulders - there's a multiplicity of cultural choices and opportunities. I prefer the present era to the 1970's or 1980's. I think it's much easier to go your own way and explore options that even 15 years ago were unavailable.

Of course I can't ignore people from the margins of society, or in countries where opportunities are denied them for a range of economic and religiopolitical reasons. That said, I had lunch with an Aboriginal Australian community worker yesterday and his take was that the present era for his mob is demonstrably healthier and happier now than it was in 1970, when his parents were young. Doesn't mean that there aren't still tragedies on a daily basis, but the clouds are lifting.

Nice. I find it curious how often I come back to the same questions and concerns no matter how well they are answered. I see others doing it here too. Some of us seem to be stuck in our own rut of eternal recurrence.

The issue of difficulty answering questions is what puts some people off philosophy, although taking that view is a rather restricted one. — Jack Cummins

That's true. Many think of philosophy as a time wasting with unanswerable questions. Philosophy seems to promise different things for different people. I lack confidence that humans can do much more than get to understand better their own prejudices and suppositions. The dreaded search to find a representation of a mind-independent external reality seems fraught.

I suspect you are right.

The difference between the indifference Van Gogh’s subjectivist art evoked in the late 19th century and the underwhelming response it would receive now is the difference between a phenomenon too radical for its time to be fully understood ( subjective expressivist painting) and that same phenomenon already well understood a century later. Contemporaries of Van Gogh couldn't grasp the new concept of subjectivism, so they likely saw his work as sloppy, immature, undisciplined, lacking in skill. Today, no discerning art critic would view a subjectivist style painting in those terms. They would instead recognize and appreciate all those elements which were missed by Van Gogh’s contemporaries. But today’s great artworks are the products not only of impressionism and subjectivism, but many artistic developments that have built upon these movements. A great art work indicates in its structure a consciousness by the artist of the sedimented history of art up through their time. — Joshs

That's very elegant.

Or better, why is the fork here constructed as between atheism and a personal god with wants and needs? What about agnosticism, pantheism, animism, paganism and so on? It's more like, on comming out from under the guidance of mummy and daddy, one beholds a vast open vista rather than a fork in the road. — Banno

That's a good point. Maybe if it is a fork, it's one with multiple prongs - a veritable junction of possibilities rather than a banal bifurcation....

:up: I keep asking the same fucking questions. Jeez.

Not "more". We just refrain from

Pseudo-questions (i.e. context-free), fallacious arguments, obfuscating rhetoric and rationalizing (apologetics for) pseudo-science ... — 180 Proof

But that would end most of the discussion here... :joke: :cool:

Can you say a bit more about the 'context free' component of pseudo questions? I'm assuming you mean non-questions, which are incoherent? What are some of the best example of these?

You test it through rationality, insight and experience. — TheMadMan

Seems unlikely to work. How do we test that people share the same sense of rationality, insight and experience? We can find people who attest to the work of Joseph Smith and Baháʼu'lláh, with equal dedication, sincerity, reasoning, experience. Or Mohammad and Guru Nanak, or... And then there's the issue of how these prophets are interpreted. How do we ascertain what understanding is reasonable and makes use of the right insight and experiences?

It is childish to put Smith and Buddha on the same category. — TheMadMan

Who counts as a legitimate prophet and how do we tell the difference?

'Logic is a powerful tool; its power, however, has its limits. So it frequently loses out against emotion, not because emotion is more reliable than reasoning, but because emotion is more forceful'. — Jack Cummins

Indeed - I also suspect that many people are drawn to logic because it is emotionally satisfying to them. :wink:

It might be interesting to get a postmodern view of logic and evidentialism.

What exactly does intellectual intuition consist of? Is this how universals or archetypes are thought to be apprehended? Sorry if the following seems dim or off topic.

Are there not more recent schools of thought (especially in postmodernism) that take apart reason and apriori logic and maths and ultimately argue these are just human frameworks that don't really operate as advertised as universal or absolutist truths (Imre Lakatos)? I think @Joshs has written of this.

I'm not educated in these matters, but the ontological status of maths and reason do interest me. It's your view that they transcend human experience and are not somehow formed as a product of human experience, right? How could we know the answer to this, given all we apprehend, all knowledge is from a human standpoint - 'the view from human' - either deliberately created, or implicitly manufactured as part of our perceptual apparatus?

Doesn't Kant argue in COPR that space is a preconscious organising feature of the human mind, a scaffold upon which we’re able to understand the physical world of objects, extension and motion? I'm assuming there is a view that maths and geometry have a similar status? How could we determine if this is a preconscious organising feature and has origins outside of human consciousness?

Analogously, "the Big Bang" maybe, not e.g. the black hole at the center of our galaxy. — 180 Proof

What about Eccentrica Gallumbits the triple-breasted whore of Eroticon Six?

Would Kant qualify as a mysterian?

But I can't see how such things as logical and geometric principles can be construed in any way other than as objects of intellectual intuition. — Wayfarer

(Perhaps this ought to be a separate thread, but I'm more than happy to participate in one.) — Wayfarer

I'd be interested to read what people think and ask a question or two.

I saw that. Isn't this one of your favourite arguments?

There's plenty of debunking of Plantinga on line if you google it. This particular argument is used - and often badly interpreted by presuppositional apologists - a particularly popular approach right now. Echoing Kant, they often argue that reason (maths, logic) is only possible because God acts as a guarantor - the random, blind forces of evolutionary naturalism can't possibly provide them. I've noticed some Muslims at this too in recent times. Hence the slogan; atheism is self-refuting.

One problem is you can make the same argument and just replace God with a magic man or alien intelligence or even pixies as the guarantor of reason. The best they can do is say the laws of logic and maths seem to be universally true, but it's almost impossible to get from there to Jesus.

Of course presups also argue that God is a properly basic belief which is self-evident and needs no justification. So if you need a gap in knowledge filled anywhere a self-evident god is always ready for use.

Mostly, one seeks their "niche" in society without a lot of soul searching. If such existential questions persist into old age, one needs to get out of the house and move around, not sit in contemplation of these niggling abstractions — jgill

Agree. I contemplate no singularities. There's enough to be getting on with in the day to day.

But we are pattern-forming creatures, and this means that we either discard or dont even see most of what impinges on us from the sensory world. Only what can be assimilated to pre-existing pattens we have constructed exists for us. So everything that we do take notice of at either a conscious or pre-conscious level is assimilated to a self , enriching, strengthening and diversifying its bounds. — Joshs

By way of clarification, is it your view (based on the literature) that when we embrace a philosophical position, say physicalism - we tend to embrace that which we are 'primed' already to accept on the grounds of pre-existing patterns we have built which are recognizable to us? Is it possible for people to accept completely new ideas - would such ideas even be comprehensible?

In order for our self-identity to evolve we need to encourage ever more sophisticated forms of social
influence from all quarters , including entreaties to buy, buy, buy from profit-making interests as their pitches evolve along with the rest of culture. — Joshs

Interesting - as a way of encountering the unfamiliar and to enlarge the possibilities?

I'm the reverse - I don't have a TV, have no social media, avoid the news, and only socialize if I have to. I shut out the world - and noise - wherever I can. :wink:

I'm been immersed in his stuff too. I can't say if he is correct but he is compelling. His on line learning videos are a model of clarity and public education. His work on Schopenhauer very interesting too, along with his work on Jung. It never occurred to me (perhaps it should have) that Jung is an idealist - the collective unconsciousness and the way I had been taught it never suggested this to me clearly enough. I studied Jung and Joseph Campbell for a year as an elective in the 1980's.

Maybe there should be a thread as per Kasturp - why materialism is baloney.

None of that resonates with me. I think humans are essentially clever animals who use words as tools to try to manage or control the environment. There's no reality or truth 'out there' somewhere to find. There are just narratives we settle upon, some of which are better suited for certain purposes than others. The project of trying to elaborate some essentialist understanding of what the human is about is not generally one which interests me.

Curious. Did you really think philosophy was just talking about itself? What is responsible for this is analytic philosophy, which has gotten lost, endlessly trying to squeeze new meanings out of familiar mundane thinking. — Constance

It's not analytic philosophy that's responsible for my view. It's the net product of reading all contributions. :wink:

You must have asked yourself the 'who am I,' and 'what do I want' questions at least and you must though about your 'purpose.' I — universeness

The OP wasn't about teen existential questions... rather something incomprehensible about science, a singularity, information... . :wink: Carry on.

. This ties in with the phenomenological idea of the 'lebenswelt' (life-world) and 'umwelt' (meaning-world), which is very different to the idea of the objective domain completely separate from the observer. It recognises the sense in which we 'construct', rather than simply observe, the world (which is also the understanding behind constructivism in philosophy.) — Wayfarer

Similar notions have long resonated with me too.

Keep in mind that even if Derrida is right, it changes nothing regarding the quality of what the world in its givenness yields. It does help us see that language does not speak the world. — Constance

Nicely put. I suspect this inadvertently summarises my position of not needing to disagree with those grand skeptics of grand narratives in philosophy, whilst simultaneously accepting that none of this makes a skerrick of difference to my actual life.

I am far less interested in understanding Husserl or Heidegger than I am interested in understanding the world. — Constance

This sounds quite old fashioned and perhaps seven quasi religious. I'm not sure I have ever thought the world could be understood. The more time I spend on this site, the more this seems reasonable. :wink:

I too am a newbie in this area but for whatever reason, I find that Husserl really resonates with me. — Wayfarer

I often wonder just how much of what we believe is arrived at through such personal processes - some ideas seem to neatly complement our existing aesthetics and values. I find Husserl, such as I have read, engaging too.