I'm not saying people should not be committed to such ideals, if that is what they feel is right for them, but the fatal error consists in prescribing such things for others, even for all people. — Janus
The subtle imposition of meaning by the collective on the individual is what holds, at least for modernity, the seeds of nihilism, insofar as it forecloses on the possibility of any creative individual establishment of meaning. — Janus
it's extremely difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who borrows theories of time from Plato and who believes that empirical reality is the subservient handmaiden to logical truth. — Uber
Do you understand that the status of naturalism does not hinge entirely on the latest hiccups in theoretical physics? — Uber
there have been major theoretical and experimental developments in biology in the last 50 years on abiogenesis to the point where it looks like we may have a unified theory on the origin of life before we have a so-called theory of everything in physics. — Uber
Likewise there have been huge advances in neuroscience. — Uber
Why not simply answer the question in plain language here and now, and then try not to be offended if I question or critique your answer, but answer any further questions honestly and to the best of your ability? — Janus
If you want to say 'authority' then whose authority are they to rely upon? How are they to judge which authority, if they choose to believe one, if not from their own experience, feeling, intuition and knowledge? — Janus
[The Buddha] was really just a fallible human like the rest of us. — Janus
how do universals cause mathematical intuition? There are basically two answers. Say that they have no causal influence whatsoever. In that case, we don't need them at all. Or provide a causal explanation of how they interact with the physical mind, without somehow making universals physical as well. — Uber
apologize for my harsh language, Undercover. The words I used were inappropriate and should have been avoided. — Uber
But I do not apologize for the general observation they expressed. Though not impossible, it's extremely difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who borrows theories of time from Plato and who believes that empirical reality is the subservient handmaiden to logical truth. At that point the problem is no longer dualism versus naturalism. It's the fundamental assumptions we make about the nature of the world. — Uber
Take the argument about the unicorns. Why do we all agree that it's ridiculous, even though it's a logically valid syllogism? Because we all know that the properties of addition have nothing to do with the existence of unicorns. — Uber
And why do we know that? Because we have a deeply embedded sense of causality that has developed through empirical experience. — Uber
This was the basis of my criticism for your explanation of the epistemological problem. It was a completely unsound argument. Using a word like "active" does not amount to a causal relation between Forms and real things in the world, and throwing out all of modern physics is not the best way to engage in discussion about the nature of reality. — Uber
Though not the only reason, I think my foundational assumptions of the world are largely accurate because of empirical evidence, the very thing you deny has any major importance. You think you can bring Forms into existence because of logical necessity, the very I think deny has any causal relevance in the actual world. There's no way to square that circle. — Uber
So, what makes you think it would be a good idea to impose your idea of truth on others? — Janus
This is the case with any "higher truth" whatsoever. Higher truths are real only insofar as people are committed to them, and they may be judged only by their fruits. I'm not saying people should not be committed to such ideals, if that is what they feel is right for them, but the fatal error consists in prescribing such things for others, even for all people. — Janus
he problem is that you can't say what that "higher truth" is. — Janus
your attempted refutation of the epistemological problem was a bunch of rambling hogwash about how neurobiology cannot explain mathematical intuition. I very much did address it in my next reply to your post. Your explanation completely avoids the actual problem: how do universals cause mathematical intuition? — Uber
Our "rational operations" in the brain, to quote Wayfarer, depend on the outside world, and then they develop concepts that go along with that dependence, such as existence, theories about the nature of that existence, etc. — Uber
To convince another to seek the same goal, a "higher truth", is not the same as imposing one's idea of truth on another. — Metaphysician Undercover
The laws of nature don't communicate with us, neither do the truths of mathematics, but we can create knowledge of them, and once created, this knowledge may have profound effects on reality. — tom
We already know why we can know truths and proofs: because of the physical structure of the brain. — Uber
So, what makes you think it would be a good idea to impose your idea of truth on others? — Janus
But this was not the question though. The issue was this:
This is the case with any "higher truth" whatsoever. Higher truths are real only insofar as people are committed to them, and they may be judged only by their fruits. I'm not saying people should not be committed to such ideals, if that is what they feel is right for them,but the fatal error consists in prescribing such things for others, even for all people. — Janus — Metaphysician Undercover
An ideal is something sought, as a perfection, so the "higher truth" is something sought, it is a goal. That's what an ideal is. — Metaphysician Undercover
To convince another to seek the same goal, a "higher truth", is not the same as imposing one's idea of truth on another. — Metaphysician Undercover
So throw out these, but keep his understanding of time right? — Uber
On this basis, I challenged the notion that Forms can somehow be active in time without being active in space as well. In other words, what does it mean for them to be active, if not in spacetime? — Uber
I try to, but it is never understood. As far as you're concerned, all such matters are personal. We invariably arrive at this point. — Wayfarer
Wayfarer, the capacity for abstract thinking develops from the physical structure of our brains, especially the high density of neurons in the cortex. — Uber
Platonic forms, necessary truths, laws of nature. None of them communicate with us. We gain knowledge of these things in the same way - conjecture and criticism, though our conjectures regarding the laws of nature are amenable to a particularly powerful method of criticism. — tom
Cool but that automatically deflates the canonical versions of Platonism, including the fairy tale varieties on offer from Wayfarer, where universal reason just magically "permeates" (his accepted terminology) the mind first, and then conjencture and criticism come later. — Uber
Can "higher truths" be corroborated intersubjectively such that people can be clearly and definitively shown to be in error if they disbelieve them? — Janus
Then we grow up and our brains change, our knowledge of language increases, until the point where abstract thinking becomes possible around the early teen years (and even before to an extent). — Uber
Wayfarer, the law of identity and all logical principles were discovered by human minds, and after being so discovered were remembered and written down by future minds. — Uber
Consider how philosophy used to be taught in the ancient world - almost like guilds or crafts. Pierre Hadot has provided many great insights into these. — Wayfarer
Can "higher truths" be corroborated intersubjectively such that people can be clearly and definitively shown to be in error if they disbelieve them? — Janus
For example some people believe that Jesus is God, and that their faith is not merely a "higher truth", but the highest truth. Do you believe that? If not, are you thereby denying that it is a higher truth? — Janus
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.