• Matt D
    1
    (I posted this over on Reddit's AskPhilosophy community but didn't get much of a response, so I figured I would try my luck here.)

    According to Wikipedia, apophenia is a term that was coined by the psychiatrist Klaus Conrad, defined as "unmotivated seeing of connections [accompanied by] a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness." I was struck by the way this concept seems to pathologize certain forms of meaning-making, drawing a line between legitimate and illegitimate interpretations of reality. I also suspect that this demarcation is grounded in a broadly secular perspective, wherein the legitimacy of an interpretation hinges on how well it fits within a physicalist ontology.

    I was reading Reason Revisited: The Philosophy of Karl Jaspers by Sebastian Samay, and I encountered this quote:

    Elsewhere, Jaspers expresses the same idea by saying that 'being-there (Dasein) and being-symbol (Symbolsein) are like two dimensions of one and the same world: in the former the world reveals itself to general consciousness, in the latter to Existence.' This double life of the world cannot be seen by the intellect which only looks for its facticity: it can be discovered only from the vantage point of existential faith. Unlike the intellect, the vision of faith has the power to loosen up the facticity and determinateness of positive objects, so that they may become more fluid symbols for existential concern, ciphers through which God may trans-appear.

    The perspective here -- that of moving beyond the facticity of objects toward deeper meanings -- seems to be at odds with a worldview that circumscribes the allowable interpretations of an object or event. Have any philosophers written about this tension? Are there metaphysical assumptions embedded in the concept of apophenia, and if so, is this problematic?
  • christian2017
    1.4k
    "unmotivated seeing of connections [accompanied by] a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness."Matt D

    i think rejection of long term consequences to sincere motivations and undetected negative conduct (bad decisions) can lead to only looking for facts that help the individual rather than society in general. I think apophenia is a problem with both the scientist, the preacher and the food service worker (me). When my bad thought or misdeed is not detected, i'm less likely to take corrective action. I do however believe forgiveness of any and all bad decision is a great thing.

    Richard Dawkins recently defended pedophilia even though it is scientifically proven to be "bad" for people. How do we define "bad"? On some level bad is relative but as people collectively communicate "bad", they eventually start coming to a common consensus. Community is scientifically proven to promote general emotional health. Death of the individual is not the worse thing that can happen to an individual.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.