I thought that the mention of Shakespeare was clear enough, to the point that this is not what I'm talking about.
The intrinsic limits of language are not present only in deficient users. They are limits of language, not of language users. — Mariner
And just because you're claiming that this is about intrinsic limits of language, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is in any given case. I'm raising alternative possibilities for consideration. It's entirely possible that there are cases that you'd count as an example of the limits of language which could better be explained [in other ways] — Sapientia
And this is quite on-topic if you ask me. Remember, my first intervention is the thread was to point out that atheists are defined by disagreement with a given linguistic expression (for example, "God exists"). Another point made in that first post was that there are theistic, orthodox expressions (apophatic theology) which deny, just as atheists do, that "God exists".
Which goes to show that there's more going on here than what can be expressed linguistically. When a traditional Christian (like me) says "Yes, God does not exist, not as other things which we call 'existents' ", we are not suddenly turned into atheists. — Mariner
Yep. Though I emphasized that "certain experiences" and "stuff" are far from being esoteric activities; I mentioned that they are accessible to toddlers, and, in reply to Agustino, I mentioned clear and methodical reasoning as part of the "stuff". — Mariner
Why is it "vague"? — Mariner
Is it not obvious that, barring bad faith or plain stupidity, both parties are talking about different referents (though they are using the same word)? — Mariner
To put some flesh in the scenario. In many occasions in my PF experience, I've seen people dispute that "God exists" based on a materialist notion. It may be Daddy-in-the-sky, which is silly, or it may be the infinitely complex God of Dawkins, which is not silly (though it is wrong). I would dispute that those gods, exist, too. But that does not mean I'm an atheist; because, when I say "God exists", I'm talking about something else. — Mariner
"What is this something else", you ask?
Well, to begin with the God of the Philosophers that has been brought up in the thread -- it is whatever sustains the natural framework, it is the link between our reason and the external world, it is the root of beauty, it is love, it is the Agathon. Etc. (An infinite etc.). — Mariner
I think it [where "it" points at everything up there in that paragraph] exists. This is why I'm not an atheist. Can an atheist believe in that with me and still call himself an atheist? Sure. What matters is not what people call themselves, it is whether or not they understand what is being said, and whether or not they are talking about the same thing. — Mariner
I don't think much of self-identified theists who can only vaguely list things which aren't even controversial to a typical atheist and merely stick onto them the label "God". — Sapientia
While to me, what is interesting is how people can react so strongly to the belief in things "which aren't even controversial". — Mariner
The first question would be whether there is experience or knowledge that cannot in principle be verbalized. — Srap Tasmaner
I'm telling you that I, a Christian, believe in God exactly as was explained above. And I'm 100% Christian, quite traditional in my beliefs. I pray everyday, I try to go to Mass weekly, etc.
Where is the equivocation, if not between what I am saying and some independent notion of yours, about "what Christians believe in". Place it in the open and we can examine whether there is equivocation and pretense. As your post stands, to complain with your interlocutor that what he presents is not consistent with your private, unexpressed notions strikes me as wrongheaded. — Mariner
Sapientia, for there to be equivocation and pretense, there ought to be some incompatibility (or at least some tension) between the Agathon (as a short index of everything I said earlier) and "eternal being, the creator, the omni-attributes, the trinity, oneness". I don't see any incompatibility or tension. Can you explain what tension you see there? — Mariner
As for love, well, I know that love is light (the physical light, that we can see with our eyes). If you prefer, "light is the physical manifestation of love". (This is not the only thing that love is). — Mariner
It is quite emphatically not "just a feeling". — Mariner
See how we can have difficulties of communication even while we use the same words? — Mariner
None of what I mentioned was in what you said — Sapientia
What?? I don't know why you'd think that [about love and light]. — Sapientia
If you were shown evidence that Christianity is a religion with very little unity, and very large divergences in beliefs upon key issues... would that evidence be enough to make you give up on Christianity as a religion?What I'm trying to tell you is that there isn't unity.... There are very large divergences in beliefs upon key issues. — Agustino
I've given evidence that the modern Stoics do have communal practices... and Stoicism itself is concerned with the well-being of all men to such an extent that they call all men their brothers.They are attractive, but they are very individualistic. They're not communal the way religions are communal. Religions involve a religious community of believers who share the faith together and agree to live by certain common principles and ideals.
benevolently wishing all of mankind to flourish and achieve “happiness” (eudaimonia) the goal of life, while accepting that this is ultimately beyond any individual’s direct control. It’s tempting to see this discipline as particularly associated with the cardinal virtue of “justice”, which the Stoics defined as including both fairness to others and benevolence. Hadot calls this discipline “action in the service of mankind”, because it involves extending the same natural affection or care that we are born feeling for our own body and physical wellbeing to include the physical and mental wellbeing of all mankind, through a process known as “appropriation” (oikeiosis) or widening the circle of our natural “self-love” to include all mankind. I’ve described this as “Stoic Philanthropy”, or love of mankind, a term they employed themselves.
No, that evidence would not be enough to make me give up Christianity as a religion. Christianity is about a lot more than premartial sex and abortions.If you were shown evidence that Christians engage in premarital sex (and abortions, by the way) on a regular basis, would that evidence be enough to make you give up on Christianity as a religion? — anonymous66
If you could show that within a denomination - say Catholicism - there are very large divergences upon significant and relevant issues, then that would be a significant factor to consider. Enough to give up Christianity as a religion? Probably not. That would require additional evidence to put in doubt Jesus's Resurrection.If you were shown evidence that Christianity is a religion with very little unity, and very large divergences in beliefs upon key issues... would that evidence be enough to make you give up on Christianity as a religion? — anonymous66
What rituals does Stoicism have? Rituals are the groundwork of communal activity.I've given evidence that the modern Stoics do have communal practices... — anonymous66
Yeah, I'm an introvert too. But the thing with many introverts is that they simply don't have a community of people like them around, hence why they prefer being alone. There's no surprise there.Many people describe themselves as introverts who rebuild their reserves of energy by being alone. I don't see any problem with that. — anonymous66
Yes. Remember my comment about private, unexpressed notions? Why should I try to guess what is important to you? It's much better that you ask about your ideas regarding God.
However, the salient point (and it is so salient that I stress it again) is that the Agathon is not incompatible with everything that you mentioned (omni, eternal, trinity, oneness), and it is also not incompatible with many other Christian notions (incarnation, sovereignty over nature, good will towards men, etc. etc.). This means that there is no equivocation (nor pretence). — Mariner
Because I reflected on it, and experienced it. You are free to disagree, of course. But you are not free to impose your ideas of how to experience the world upon me. — Mariner
This is basically the problem with discussions like this one, incidentally. Instead of trying to understand how others understand the world, people prefer to dictate how other people should understand the world, and to rail against people who understand the world differently. — Mariner
But how is the word "experience" being used here? Do you know that you had the experience? Do you have a memory of the experience? A memory of having the experience? If you had the same or a similar experience at another time, would you know it was the same or a similar experience? Did you, in the first place, know that the experience you were having was a "territory" experience? If so, how? By trying to conceptualize it and failing? — Srap Tasmaner
Obviously then there's the question of how to characterize the experience, and some people object to some characterizations. That may be a claim that there is a kind of experience you cannot have had, or it may a sort of "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Also, the Christian tradition, for instance, isn't exclusively mystical. On what grounds could you connect an unconceptualizable experience to a thoroughly conceptualized theology? There may be apophatic elements within that theology, but what about the rest? (Mystics have also had to face charges not only of heresy, but worse. How do you know what you experienced was not the Deceiver?) — Srap Tasmaner
Experience cannot be representational; it is the constituent of reality for us. Any representation of ours begins with experience and is only valid inasmuch as it keeps consistency with our experience. — Mariner
that our viewpoints are irreducibly subjective, and that objectivity is already an extrapolation (guided by reason) of our experiences. — Mariner
Either this ends up as Bateson's infinite regress that forever keeps the territory out of the map, or it ends up trivially as the claim that I experience what I experience as I experience it. — Srap Tasmaner
All we did was allow the possibility that experience was experience of something. — Srap Tasmaner
So the natural conclusion is that if experience is irreducibly subjective, that either says nothing or it says experience cannot be experience of something. — Srap Tasmaner
Perhaps all that matters is that we keep in mind that, having somehow picked out something as an experience, we could make different choices that would be just as valid, or that we recognize that how we circumscribe an experience will depend on our purpose in doing so, rather than on something intrinsic to the experience. — Srap Tasmaner
And perhaps that's where we want to end up. If "experience is the constituent of reality for us," then experience just is, we might say (if we were comfortable saying things like "reality just is"). If experience could be experience of something, then surely those somethings would figure large in reality. — Srap Tasmaner
What makes you think I don't? I highly respect Stoicism, and absent Christianity, I would say Stoicism is the highest point reachable by man. I just pointed out to something Stoicism lacks - a community bound by a clear set of rules. Stoicism also lacks the Christian hope. Otherwise the two are quite similar.Let me just point out that consistency/reason/rationality requires that you judge your own belief system (and its followers) by the same standards with which you judge others. — anonymous66
What makes you think I don't? — Augustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.