I fully expect people to have abandoned the assumption that mind comes from matter. It will happen a lot sooner than that. — RogueAI

Sounds like you are already a believer but I wonder if this is an argument from ignorance at work. Personally I am sympathetic to mysterianism. The question of climate change and other physically understood problems will matter a lot more in this timeframe than resolving the consciousness puzzle. Are you an idealist along Kastrup lines?

If science still has not made progress on these fundamental questions, say, a century from now, do you think people will start questioning the assumption that consciousness can come from matter? — RogueAI

I know this is not to me but... do facts run to a stopwatch? :wink: What if it takes 200 years? And it isn't just science that hasn't resolved these questions- - there is no agreed upon account outside of science or physicalism either. If we still can't explain consciousness using a superphysical explanation in 100 years, will people start questioning the assumption that consciousness is magic spirit?

But what has to be shown is how reason is by its nature worthy of being determinative in this way: Reason is entirely without content. In Kant's terms, it is "empty". It has no meaning whatever until empirical contents are there to be synthesized with it. That we are able to grasp the Pythagorean theorem shows reason to be useful! But usefulness to what end? Meaning is derived not from reason, but from the world and its value. If I were to think of what God is, it would certainly NOT be a hyperrational entity, for reason qua reason has no value at all. — Astrophel

This is to some extent my own instinctive sense of reason. I find it interesting how many believers with a philosophical bent still attempt to use reason to demonstrate that a belief in God is rational and necessary. But then what? Even if reason demonstrates that God is necessary, could it not be that a responsible human says 'fuck off' to the deity?

So when I say value is far more important (for it is a word that signifies importance itself) in describing a human being I don't mean say nothing else matters. Just that, if you will, this business of mattering, matters more than what else can be said. I think any undertaking one can take on, the value question is always begged: why bother at all to proceed? The question that haunts metaphysics is, why thrown into a world with this powerful dimension of affectivity? A rational inquiry into reason is certainly interesting and useful, but would be nothing at all if no one cared. — Astrophel

This also resonates with me. Some might argue that reason is at war with affectivity and that the latter must be tamed by rationality as it too readily leads to conflict and reactive behaviours with ourselves and others. Affectivity is surely the prime mover behind the best and worst in human behaviour as it tends to activate a transcendence of personal and cultural limitations and allows us to make 'impossible' choices for good or ill.

Argument layout:
In the Christian view, God saves us from our suffering.
When God is not saving us from our suffering, They [God] are allowing it to continue.
One would never inflict unnecessary suffering upon someone they loved.
In Chrisianity, God loves everyone.
Thus, Christianity is false. — makayla harris

I don't think these premises are all that strong, to be honest. The conclusion at best would be that God may be different in nature than some versions of Christianity would have us believe.

Take your first premise. In the Christian view God might save us form suffering. But this is not a given. Look what happened to his son. Many expressions of Christianity are predicated on the virtue found in suffering and poverty. The suffering - if it ends - happens through salvation after death. Suffering affords Christians the chance to be better people, to test their faith and to provide charity and it is a part of God's ineffable plan.

But your broader point, which is commonly stated by skeptics is this - why does an all good, all knowing, all loving God allow innocent people (especially children) to suffer and die in their millions?

This might demonstrate some contractions (but not disprove) in a literalist, fundamentalist version of the Christian god. But that's not a difficult thing.

You are one of the most moderate atheists here on the forum. You don't share the rabid obsession of some. But your lack of imagination limits your understanding. — T Clark

Thanks TC. But I meant what I said and I think the point is a moderate one. :smile: My imagination is working fine. Maybe I put it badly. Let me try again. If God is an explanation for creation/reality then this explanation is just another mystery. Even those who experience God (through, say, the Apophatic tradition) would agree that God is beyond ordinary perception and human experience.

I don't think an experience of a god - even if I grant that the experience is genuine - counts as an explanation of anything God is said to have done or wants from humans. The experience explains the experience and may well count as proof of God by the believer, but it does not provide an elucidation of anything further.

This is a human language problem, not a theological one. Language paradoxes don't limit God's abilities. — T Clark

I was going to make precisely the same point.

I cannot think of a way for the theist to solve this problem. — Raymond Rider

The bigger problem for the theist is that they have no way of explaining how or why a god created anything or what a god even is. So in essence, before we get bogged down into meta-questions, it's worth recognizing that theism generally employs a mystery to explain a mystery. Gods have no explanatory power.

Basically, I think people should focus on work.
— baker

"Work sets you free".

And she says I'm right wing. — Banno

Cheap shot, but that made me laugh. A lot.

Over my life I have known many transgender people - young and old. Some very brave folk who were out there thirty years ago and really took risks to become the person they are now. No one I have met is transgender for laughs or as a stunt. People's biology doesn't need to limit their gender expression and changing sex may be an efficacious pathway to good mental health and full participation in community life. I can't pretend to understand this phenomenon experientially but I can support people and wish them the best. There are few things less noble than resenting or undermining people for who they are.

My worry is that it seems like Christianity’s necessary condition for salvation — tryhard

Not all Christian traditions are concerned with crass notions of salvation. There are some much more mystical theological expressions such as the Apophatic tradition.

I wouldn't be worried. Religious syncretism is as old as humanity.

This is what I am getting at. How much of what you say sheds light on the "Basic Questions for any Kantians"? — Fooloso4

Possibly not all that much but it is interesting to read about Prauss. I have a superficial interest in idealism in general - in appreciating its attractions and logic.

An answer to your question requires some scholarship and one of the first steps would be separating whoever Jesus the man was (around whom a complex myth was constructed in the decades/centuries after his life) from the religion of Christianity, which borrowed freely from traditions as the Romans spread the nascent faith around their territories. The Gospels date from 30 to 80 years after the life of Jesus, are by anonymous sources and not by eyewitnesses - they can almost be considered to be fan fiction.

It appears that anyone can be a philosopher, it is a way of perceiving life in general. — GBG

This is a muddy and unsophisticated view which has been refuted in this thread whenever it has come up. Which is not all that often since it is a pretty reductive account. It's not 'perceiving life in general' - it is thinking about matters philosophically and with rigour.

Most philosophy appears to be the home of the academic and highly educated with the constrictions that that would imply. — GBG

Or the well read, who may have little formal education. Autodidacts. Almost impossible to be a philosopher without knowing the traditions and having an understanding of the mistakes or achievements already well understood.

After all you have to be on the outside looking in so see the whole picture. — GBG

Clumsy. If you are 'looking in' you are clearly not seeing the whole picture - you are looking into an enclosed space. To see the whole vista you need to be looking outside at the view

I am not yet over encumbered by other philosopher’s ideas and thoughts. — GBG

If you are an absolute genius there is a small chance this may be possible, Generally speaking it is unlikely that you or anyone you know will have an original philosophical idea that hasn't already been explored many times, untangled and redefined. Expertise cannot be underrated. Philosophy builds on the accumulated wisdom of others.

But I think Bertram Russell wrote that Science is fact, religious belief is Dogma — GBG

You need to do better that "I think" in philosophy. Check your source. And it is Bertrand Russell.

I think most people from all backgrounds think philosophically about the things that happen in their own lives and with social media their thoughts and ideas are easy to see — GBG

That is called reflection, or having an opinion, it is not philosophy. What is their position on the problem of induction? Intentionality? Husserl's notion of epoché? The Gettier problem in epistemology?

And if Philosophy is the bridge between Dogma and Science, and today’s largest religion is social media the you only have to look at Twitter etc to see our new latter-day Philosophers in the making. — GBG

Ideologists, sophists or influencers with worldviews are not philosophers. There's a big difference between opinions and philosophy. Having an opinion on life no more makes you a philosopher than going on an overseas trip makes you an ethnologist.

Freud's oceanic sensations generally refer to the 'feeling' some people have of eternity and oneness with all reality, amongst other descriptions. Perhaps a sense of the numinous to others. I've met plenty of physicalist atheists who claim to feel this very thing when in nature or listening to, let's say, Bach. Not sure it necessarily translates to belief in the supernormal. Personally I think people generally have an emotional need for whatever belief they hold and retro fit the reasoning for it by way of post hoc rationalisations.

I can become a vegan, but I would have to damage other DNA based organisms to survive anyways. And I'm not alone. The earth is filled with living organisms preying on one another to survive. All of them must. Is this system based on cruelty, or is cruelty a silly notion that melodramatic humans make up? Is there something else at play? — Ree Zen

Nature does what it does. It is human beings who ascribe values. From some points of view nature could be understood as cruel and violent. As meaning making creatures with an indefatigable drive to build meaning systems and values, humans will always find a way to see in nature a justification for nihilism, social-Darwinism, or evidence of God's glory.

I'm pretty sure that's right. I generally think of him as a performance artist.

Why do you think Kawabata said literature can defeat religion? Is it related to promote a better educational system or the pursue of a free state of knowledge through books? — javi2541997

I imagine there may be a specific Japanese context to this claim. The status of religion in Japan is likely to be quite different to the West's. 'Defeat" is an interesting word. Is literature at war with religion? Not entirely. But there is a banal observation to be made here. If religion is going to be surpassed by other, perhaps 'better' ideas, it is likely to be done via literature. The key ideas in public discourse are still written down and presented in textual form.

Elbow patches on a jacket? — Mayor of Simpleton

No that's English literature. Philosophy is a comb over and a black turtleneck.

But why is competence necessary to be a philosopher, why does one have to be competent to be a member of a field? — CallMeDirac

Surely that can't be a serious question? Would you use a mechanic who isn't competent? A plumber? Would you use an accountant who can't add up or use financial software packages? Would you call a person who knows next to nothing about philosophy - epistemology, metaphysics, logic - a philosopher? Or do you not take philosophy seriously enough to consider competence a criterion of value?

I think we are done here. We're going around in circles.

Our definitions differ in that you consider mine to simplistic and all-inclusive, and I consider yours arbitrary and with no objective way to determine who deserves a title. Can you provide some way to determine what makes one a philosopher more specific than "to be part of a tradition"? — CallMeDirac

Actually it's your definition which is arbitrary as it sets no criteria or competence at all and therefore is not even a definition. You'll remember you originally said:

A philosopher is anyone who examines the nature of life and metaphysics — CallMeDirac

Pretty arbitrary.

Then you added that it was a hobby and enjoyment was part of it. Pretty arbitrary.

Unlike you, I am not attempting to define what a philosopher is. I am simply proving feedback that competence and knowledge is a very important component of any potential definition. Defining philosophy isn't easy but I know it isn't just anyone who has deep thoughts about life and being.

I think this is a good foundation:

Philosophers are defined by doing philosophy. But how? Competently. Who's to judge? Her peers in the context of the extant philosophical tradition wherein living philosophers (academic or otherwise) dialogue with (the extant works and embodied influences) – perhaps dozens of generations before her – dead philosophers. — 180 Proof

It's been covered here before on this thread but the notion of expertise is important if someone is going to be given certain titles such as a philosopher. It's probably important to be familiar with key questions of philosophy and to know what others have already written about these often highly complex matters. Otherwise you are just reinventing the wheel or, more likely, getting stuck in problems that have long been untangled or resolved. For my money to be a philosopher is to be part of a tradition, not some bloke sitting on the back step musing philosophically.

By your definition, unless someone was sexually attracted to their partner they cannot have a romantic relationship, yet asexual people can and do have romantic relationships. — CallMeDirac

I'll take your word for it.

A philosopher is anyone who contemplates the meaning of life and metaphysical questions for enjoyment. Anyone whose hobby is contemplation. — CallMeDirac

No. Many serious philosophers do not enjoy the work. They are compelled to enquire and may in fact find the work hard and frustrating.

asexual people still have relationships, people who can no longer engage in sex have romantic partners whether that be from injury or deterioration of bodily functions. — CallMeDirac

As I said an erotic component OR sex. You don't need to engage in sex to have an erotic/romantic relationship with someone. If the relationship is asexual then it is platonic. Anyway that's my view. The subject may be infinitely richer than this.

Generally romantic love involves eroticism or actual sex.

I was asking you that question and you answered it. :wink: Personally I think almost every human engages in such questions - with or without the bong. To call this philosophy means every human is a philosopher (except perhaps for the brain dead) which makes the title almost meaningless as far as I can tell.

A philosopher is anyone who examines the nature of life and metaphysics — CallMeDirac

Anyone? Is there no question about the quality or level of sophistication? Is my illiterate cousin Tony a philosopher? He often ponders the meaning of life and wonders if he's in the matrix... as he packs another bong.

Should we stop assigning Plato or Aristotle in philosophy classes because most students do not find them entertaining and will not read them? — Fooloso4

I think history will take care of Plato and Aristotle for good or ill, regardless of anything else. Perhaps 'entertainment' was the wrong word? I think @ucarr might mean 'engaging'. Some philosophy can be highly engaging, which for me seems a more redeemable and useful term.

Not that this is particularly relevant, I find I agree with you on all counts - re time, reality, imposed structures/'laws'.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Since you say "understood more deeply" I assume you are not inquiring about what the categories are. — Fooloso4

Thanks, yes, poor language use on my part, sorry. I should have written: What has Kant said about the structure of the mind that allows it to make sense of the noumenal world and 'construct' our phenomenal world? I was thinking more about its cognitive architecture, but perhaps this is too big a question. I have just skim read the SEP account of Kant's view of mind and it's very detailed and dense.

I know this is probably a silly question, but I can't help but wonder why Kant thought the world was divided in this way, between appearances and reality.

Nice work. Thanks.

But this possibility cannot be determined by reason. — Fooloso4

Indeed and not just this question. :wink:

The manifold of sensations are processed according the structure of the mind, what he calls the "categories of the understanding". — Fooloso4

So this is my understanding too. I am curious about what structures of the mind can mean when understood more deeply.

Things as they are in themselves are not accessible to us, only things as they are for us. Although they are not accessible to us they are an essential part of experience. In short, they do have physical form. — Fooloso4

Can we say from this that Kant's idealism is a form of naturalism?

You're quite welcome. The subject fascinates me. I think there are still many Christians who don't know aspects of Christianity's history. For example, I know Catholics, or former Catholics, who were surprised to learn Jesus had brothers. — Ciceronianus

Indeed. One of the fascinating things about Christianity is so often the more ardent the faith, the more ignorant the believer. Faith holds everything together for many people. The Bible is not understood or read. Which is why Isaac Asimov said "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.' I've certainly met a number of atheists who reached their position after reading the Good Book.

It's not hard to find evidence for the proposition that ignorance and religion are familiar bedfellows. I've known a number of Thai and Vietnamese Buddhists who have had religious stories told them as children, but have never read a canonical word. Their faith is as threadbare as the faith of any Baptist...

There seems to be significant difference and disagreement amongst the positions held by phenomenologists - Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty. I understand Merleau-Ponty rejects Husserl's transcendental reduction and intentionality. I wonder how anyone can tell which reading is faithful and who has the preferred approach? If you say that as a mere reader you can discern each position as intended and from this determine which approach is more helpful, then I must assume your mind is as penetrating and original as the author's.

"X is ineffable". How were you able to assign a predicate "ineffable" to X if you assume that X is ineffable? — Zebeden

It's simple really. We do it all the time - we look at nature and find the impact it has on us ineffable. As soon as you try to use words to describe it you are reduced to cliché and banality. Even Wittgenstein (when discussing morality) said “There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words.” (TLP 6.522)

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (L. W., Tractatus §7). Or should we say in this case - "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one always remains silent". — Zebeden

Wittgenstein said a lot of things and I don't think he is widely recognised as resolving the question of God.

Journal entry (11 June 1916), p. 72e and 73e 1910s, Notebooks 1914-1916
Contexte: What do I know about God and the purpose of life? I know that this world exists. That I am placed in it like my eye in its visual field. That something about it is problematic, which we call its meaning. This meaning does not lie in it but outside of it. That life is the world. That my will penetrates the world. That my will is good or evil. Therefore that good and evil are somehow connected with the meaning of the world. The meaning of life, i. e. the meaning of the world, we can call God. And connect with this the comparison of God to a father. To pray is to think about the meaning of life./quote]

But in the "contradiction" between finitude and infinity, one looks for the ground where the finite simply ends, and off everything goes to infinity. Given the finite, the limited, the well structured and familiar, I see no "place" where this can stand apart from infinity. Infinity does not have its termination anywhere, but rather "runs through" all that is. If infinity is taken as a mere extension of the familiar, as in a sequence of negative time moments that has no end or a spatial extension of "further ons" with no end (both Kant denies in any way describes noumena, of course) then all we have is a concept of infinity that is, if you will, finitized, made finite. Pointless to even bother taking seriously if this is the best one can do, and Kant thought this the case. Clearly not what Eckhart had in mind with God. With him there is something entirely Other. And this Other is not the vacuous noumena of Kant. — Astrophel

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Mysticism I am familiar with but I have no idea what the rest of what you say means but will read it again later and see if I can unravel it. I am not a philosopher and the idea of infinity has never captured my attention.

Fire is fought with fire. — baker

Good point

How do I know that I can't comprehend God? — Zebeden

You can take this in various directions. Not being able to comprehend God does not mean you can't talk about God, it just means that when you are, you are fumbling around using human categories and definitions which will always be inadequate or wrong. God is ineffable.

Consider this - God has no explanatory power. People use God as a way to explain all manner of things - creation, meaning, morality. But what precisely is explained with an appeal to God? Precisely nothing. It is, for instance, incomprehensible to us how God might have initiated creation. To say we can explain creation using God is to use a mystery to explain a mystery.

Kant doesn't see that noumena is just a term for what is in the phenomenological "presence". Experience itself is thoroughly noumenal. There is an insight here that is elusive, slippery. One way to say it is this: we live an breathe metaphysics. We think of metaphysics as being impossibly remote (like Kant does in the transcendental dialectic) but this is all wrong, simply put. — Astrophel

What a tantalising response. Can you say more about experience itself being noumenal?

I saw that debate and its an old one. Bart has become far more anti-theist since then, check out some of his latest YouTube offerings. — universeness

Bart being anti-theist has no bearing on my point. We were talking about how he views Jesus the man and I have seen most of Dr Ehrman's recent interviews (January 2022) wherein he maintains exactly the same position.

The most current views on Jesus (even from secular sources) is that he was a teacher of some kind who inspired some big myths. In fact over the past 50 years until now there has been a gradual consensus emerging that the mythicist view is very hard to justify.

If you want to understand what other people understand about the world, you need to make sure you are in the same world they are. — T Clark

Yes, and that particular world is often a patchwork quilt of words and emotions. In his mid 90's I asked my father what he thought about Jesus. His response - 'Jesus is whoever the preacher tells us he is.' Sometimes people don't reside in a world of their own.

That seems to me to be a serious problem. — Ciceronianus

It's only a problem for concrete thinking. There's a vast and venerable tradition of allegorical understanding of Christianity, Judaism and other religious traditions - leading us into the mystical traditions of faiths, which often become wordless and contemplative rather than a focused list of who, what, where and when. The majority of people seem to prefer the list, as there is a special safety in the predictability of believing that a story is literally true. Personally, as someone lacking a sensus divinitatis, the entire matter is 'academic'.

The Jesus of the Gospels seems disposable. Why do they bother with Jesus? This is my question. — Ciceronianus

I used to ask this question. I think the answer is complex and hard for literal minded people like me to comprehend. The gospels are not 'disposable' - this is a reaction to, not an understanding of what is meant - the books suggest a truth above narrative and provide examples and teachings in a form for humans to engage with at their level of understanding.

Jesus can be seen to fit into in a bodhisattva story tradition. These day I'm more inclined not to resist or disparage this way of viewing things but find it fascinating that this is how humans make meaning. As long as Jesus isn't used as an excuse for fag hating; life denying, bad politics and the setting off of bombs (and let's face it this is where literalists have often ended up), I don't mind how his story is understood.