An Autopsy of the Enlightenment.

unenlightened

There can be no private language, and therefore no private mind.

The Enlightenment was the age of the triumph of science (Newton, Leibniz, Bacon) and of philosophy (Descartes, Locke, Spinoza, Kant, Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu). Unlike the Renaissance philosophers, they no longer sought validation in the texts of the Greco-Roman philosophers, but were predicated more solidly on rationalism and empiricism. There were atheists among them, and devout Christians, but if there was a common belief about the divine among Enlightenment philosophers, it was probably deism.

The political philosophy of the Enlightenment is the unambiguous antecedent of modern Western liberalism: secular, pluralistic, rule-of-law-based, with an emphasis on individual rights and freedoms. Note that none of this was really present in the Renaissance, when it was still widely assumed that kings were essentially ordained by God, that monarchy was the natural order of things and that monarchs were not subject to the laws of ordinary men, and that the ruled were not citizens but subjects.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/01/whats-the-difference-between-the-renaissance-and-the-enlightenment.html

The above outlines the topic, and serves as a preliminary description of the corpse. Now some might wish to argue that "... modern Western liberalism: secular, pluralistic, rule-of-law-based, with an emphasis on individual rights and freedoms". is not dead yet. But as this is only a virtual autopsy, and has to take place before the wretched corpse is buried for good and all, I can assume the death from various words and deeds of Western leaders, who find it convenient to pay lip-service to enlightenment principles whilst undermining them in practice. And with that assumption declared, I shall say no more about how the enlightenment lives on in modern politics, but assuming its death, proceed with the dissection.

Here is my scalpel; it is an ancient one, but still sharp.

Man is a measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are and of things that are not, that they are not. — Protagoras

Science is all about measurement, and measurement is all about ratios. For one to be 6 foot tall, is to have a ratio between height and foot length of about 6:1. And from 'ratio' is derived the terms 'rational' and rationalism. Now Socrates counters Protagoras in a way neatly summarised in the comments
here. {Please read this link, it's very short, but important to understand.}

This is an early version of the conundrum that still haunts us in the form of a dispute about subjectivity and objectivity, but what the enlightenment did was to come down firmly on both sides. It carves out a realm of physicality that is entirely separate from the mind of man and calls that the objective world, and relegates morality to the subjective world of Protagoras, where all is relative to man and thus a matter of opinion. The 'is/ought' separation begins here.

Science will tell us what is nutritious and what is poisonous as a matter of objective fact, but which is better is subjective. To those who want to survive for a while, it may seem to be that nutrition is good, and poison is bad, but if someone wants to die, the opposite is true. A familiar position; how can one argue against it?

The problem, is that I might decide that nutrition is good for me, but poison for you is also good for me. Your counter that you want to live carries no weight with me, that's just subjective. And science, objectivity, rationality are unable to adjudicate; they have abdicated from ruling this realm. Our disagreement is a matter of your life or death, and there are no means of resolution available to the enlightened mind.

You might be a little concerned about this. You might wonder how this division arose in this form. You might wonder how the Socratic argument got to be defeated in the moral realm, and was victorious in the physical realm.You might wonder how come we live in these two incompatible and incommensurable worlds simultaneously. But likely not. Science works, and that's the way it is - shrug.

It's all Descartes's fault! His meditations are an attempt to escape the limitations of the phenomenal world. The method of doubt rejects the reality of phenomena as illusions and fixes on thought as the one undeniable reality. Man is a thinking thing. Well you can read the argument from there if you want, but my main concern is with the manner of his construction of sceptical doubt, which is the foundation of his philosophy and is in diametric opposition to the Socratic tradition of dialogue. That is the revolution in philosophy that he inaugurated.

And what this does is establish for him the isolated individual mind as a world of its own, and a separate realm of matter, and the third realm of God. The sovereign individual is born of his meditations, may he rot in hell. The mind is sovereign in its own world of thought, and indirectly contacts the material world and can form true thoughts about it, because God is good or some such.

It is this isolated yet undeniable self, that now constitutes the subjective realm, undeniable and unarguable because isolated, and the material world becomes shared and objective, because it is not the phenomena that are shared, but the ideas and thoughts we have about the phenomena. If this is sounding upside down and inside out, well you are not alone!

Because we do not start alone, but within a (m)other, within a family, within a community, within an already minded world. The thoughts that Descartes takes for his indubitable private realm, are handed down and taught him by that minded world, right down to the very idea of scepticism - not French at all, but ancient Greek. We post, we argue with and against each other. And that is why I remain unenlightened. Doubt the self, not the community.

So there is my crude autopsy of the system of thought that I think we have already outlived, but perhaps not by very long, You can fill in the details, offer corrections, or tell another story altogether. But I am going to take a break from this site, so I won't be responding for now. Instead, to bring the topic back to the present, and by way of some sort of personal explanation of my motivations, I offer this interview with David Suzuki. Is it too late? Of course! (The video does not seem to like being embedded so I offer the Youtube link and the blatently gay interviewers' podcast instead. The video is called, "the Brutal Truth About Climate Change ft David Suzuki."

Have loads of fun, and farewell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1ePZHF1dQ&list=TLPQMTQxMTIwMjUB66KeuKxdwQ&index=3

https://www.youtube.com/sidenotepodcast

frank

The bit from the Enlightenment that I think about from time to time is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So true.

NOS4A2

↪unenlightened

It’s a common story told in a common way. We literally start “within” a mother, within a womb. This fact gives the argument a little force. But then for some reason we have to switch to our figurative voice. We’re “within” a community, figuratively, as if a community was a thing within which we can contain ourselves. This figurative language is used routinely in arguments against individualism.

Of course, you wouldn’t mention that the umbilical chord is cut shortly after birth. Our individuation is a brute fact most of us will face for the majority of our lives, and the “minded world” has yet to come to terms with it. All it can offer is metaphor.

Take care!

Wayfarer

This is an early version of the conundrum that still haunts us in the form of a dispute about subjectivity and objectivity, but what the enlightenment did was to come down firmly on both sides. It carves out a realm of physicality that is entirely separate from the mind of man and calls that the objective world, and relegates morality to the subjective world of Protagoras, where all is relative to man and thus a matter of opinion. The 'is/ought' separation begins here. ...

...It's all Descartes's fault! His meditations are an attempt to escape the limitations of the phenomenal world. ...what this does is establish for him the isolated individual mind as a world of its own, and a separate realm of matter, and the third realm of God. — unenlightened

:100: Very similar to the points I've been trying to make in the Predicment of Modernity and Idealism in Context.

I am going to take a break from this site, so I won't be responding for now — unenlightened

I know how you feel, I took all October out. Pity you won't be around to see how much I agree with you.

Wayfarer

Further to which, one of the books that started me down this route (although there were many) was a 1994 title Understanding the Present. It was a pretty ferocious polemic, by a British science journalist, but explored many similar themes to the OP:

In a brilliant and explosively controversial work, the author attacks modern science for destroying our spiritual sense of self.

What is the role of science in present-day society? Should we be as dazzled as we are by the innovations, the insights, and the miraculous improvements in material life that science has wrought? Or is there a darker, more pernicious side to our scientific success?

Renowned British science columnist Bryan Appleyard thoroughly explores each of these provocative topics in a book that has incited the ire of the scientific community. He points out that while scientists have shaped our lives and our beliefs, they have consistently failed to explain human consciousness, the soul, or the meaning of life. From Galileo to Darwin, from Copernicus to Oppenheimer, countless scientists have proclaimed a universe in which human beings are only an accidental presence. The unwitting result is that science has cast humankind adrift, paralyzing us with fear and cutting us off from personal or religious truth. In Appleyard’s view, science has done us “appalling spiritual damage.”

These startling conclusions have prompted strong counterattacks from the scientific establishment. Yet regardless of where one falls in the debate, Understanding the Present forces readers to re-examine society’s blind faith in the benevolence of modern science. — Understanding the Present, Bryan Applyard

Joshs

↪Wayfarer

Renowned British science columnist Bryan Appleyard thoroughly explores each of these provocative topics in a book that has incited the ire of the scientific community. He points out that while scientists have shaped our lives and our beliefs, they have consistently failed to explain human consciousness, the soul, or the meaning of life. From Galileo to Darwin, from Copernicus to Oppenheimer, countless scientists have proclaimed a universe in which human beings are only an accidental presence. The unwitting result is that science has cast humankind adrift, paralyzing us with fear and cutting us off from personal or religious truth. In Appleyard’s view, science has done us “appalling spiritual damage.” — Understanding the Present, Bryan Applyard

Here’s key claims about the limits of science from Appleyard, and my critique of them:

Appleyard argues that rather than being a neutral method, science has turned into a kind of “mysticism” that only it can address its self-created questions. Pre-Newtonian worldviews (Aristotelian/Christian) provided meaning and moral grounding; the scientific revolution replaced that with a mechanistic cosmos ruled by universal “laws.” Human beings are increasingly viewed as biological machines (genetic coding, deterministic systems), which undermines the sense that we have free will, purpose, or a “soul.” Appleyard doesn’t call for abandoning science. Rather, he argues science should be “humbled”: recognized as one way of knowing, not the only or supreme one. He suggests we need a worldview that allows for meaning, value, and humanity beyond what science currently offers; a balance between scientific insight and spiritual/moral depth.

Appleyard focuses on science, but what he’s really attacking is a range of philosophical worldviews supporting the scientific approaches he disapproves of. Physicalism, mechanism and determinism (which seem to be his targets) belong to an older era of philosophy and science, but have been put into question by more recent philosophical and empirical approaches.

Leontiskos

It carves out a realm of physicality that is entirely separate from the mind of man and calls that the objective world, and relegates morality to the subjective world of Protagoras, where all is relative to man and thus a matter of opinion. The 'is/ought' separation begins here. — unenlightened

Yes, and a deeper look can be seen by looking at Simpson's comments on Hume's historical importance (cf. Goodness and Nature: Supplement on Historical Origins, 91-112).

It's all Descartes's fault... — unenlightened

Incidentally, I wrote a post to @Wayfarer about

↪the same book

.

Because we do not start alone, but within a (m)other, within a family, within a community, within an already minded world. The thoughts that Descartes takes for his indubitable private realm, are handed down and taught him by that minded world, right down to the very idea of scepticism - not French at all, but ancient Greek. — unenlightened

Yes, although Descartes self-consciously distinguished himself from the Pyrrhonists (cf. Myles Burnyeat, "The sceptic in his place and time.").

It's worth asking why ancient Pyrrhonism did not lead to same outcome if it is so similar to Descartes' theoretical skepticism. I think a big part of the reason is that both were using the same tool, but for a very different purpose. Descartes desired certitude and usefulness vis-a-vis the material world. Sextus wanted ataraxia.

180 Proof

Descartes desired certitude and usefulness vis-a-vis the material world. Sextus [Pyrrho] wanted ataraxia. — Leontiskos

:up: :up:

T Clark

This is definitely outside my wheelhouse. What a dumb cliché. So, somebody set me straight.

You called this an autopsy, but I don’t think that’s what it is. It’s not even a eulogy. I’m not sure enlightenment values are dying and I can’t really imagine what they would be replaced by.

Science is all about measurement, and measurement is all about ratios. For one to be 6 foot tall, is to have a ratio between height and foot length of about 6:1. And from 'ratio' is derived the terms 'rational' and rationalism. Now Socrates counters Protagoras in a way neatly summarised in the comments
here. {Please read this link, it's very short, but important to understand.} — unenlightened

I think this is misleading. To nitpick—as far as I can find, the word “rational,” meaning, established by reason came first and the meaning as a ratio of two integers came much later.

This is an early version of the conundrum that still haunts us in the form of a dispute about subjectivity and objectivity, but what the enlightenment did was to come down firmly on both sides. It carves out a realm of physicality that is entirely separate from the mind of man and calls that the objective world, and relegates morality to the subjective world of Protagoras, where all is relative to man and thus a matter of opinion. The 'is/ought' separation begins here. — unenlightened

I think “subjectivity” is the wrong word here, and I think that’s important. As I understand it, before the enlightenment, the universe was seen as infused with meaning. That meaning was not seen as subjective, although I’m not sure objective is the right word either. I think what you’re calling “subjectivity” is something that humans were supposed to observe and understand through our experience and reason.The world and it’s meaning come first, and our subjective understanding comes afterwards.

It is this isolated yet undeniable self, that now constitutes the subjective realm, undeniable and unarguable because isolated, and the material world becomes shared and objective, because it is not the phenomena that are shared, but the ideas and thoughts we have about the phenomena. If this is sounding upside down and inside out, well you are not alone! — unenlightened

I certainly don’t want to go back to the pre-enlightenment world, the world of the divine right of Kings. That doesn’t mean I don’t recognize some of the issues you highlight. I have made the argument here a number of times in several different contexts that man is the measure of all things. That’s right at the center of my understanding of what Lao Tzu has to tell us. Taoism recognizes both the human and non-human worlds without conflict. As I sometimes put it—the world is 1/2 human.

So, do we reform rationalism? I am not at all sure that’s possible. On the other hand, I don’t want to go back to the values of the old way, as if we could.

ChatteringMonkey

I certainly don’t want to go back to the pre-enlightenment world, the world of the divine right of Kings. That doesn’t mean I don’t recognize some of the issues you highlight. I have made the argument here a number of times in several different contexts that man is the measure of all things. That’s right at the center of my understanding of what Lao Tzu has to tell us. Taoism recognizes both the human and non-human worlds without conflict. As I sometimes put it—the world is 1/2 human.

So, do we reform rationalism? I am not at all sure that’s possible. On the other hand, I don’t want to go back to the values of the old way, as if we could. — T Clark

Isn't one of the first things the Dao de jing tells us that 'the Dao that can be named is not the real or eternal Dao', essentially indicating that logos or reason cannot be primary.

You have similar ideas in most of the oldest creation myths where the formless, the indeterminate Chaos, often symbolised by the sea (for instance Tiamat), almost uniformely comes before order.

With Greek philosophy and later Christianity the West took another turn, where the eternal forms and the logos became primary.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

It seems to me that Descartes and the enlightenment is merely downstream from this essential (mis)valuation.

And so a 'reform of rationalism' would come from putting it in it's propper place, a recognition that reason is not the be all, end all.

ssu

Now some might wish to argue that "... modern Western liberalism: secular, pluralistic, rule-of-law-based, with an emphasis on individual rights and freedoms". is not dead yet. But as this is only a virtual autopsy, and has to take place before the wretched corpse is buried for good and all, I can assume the death from various words and deeds of Western leaders, who find it convenient to pay lip-service to enlightenment principles whilst undermining them in practice. — unenlightened

Have ever leaders followed any principles in their actual actions? Grand speeches are different as are the high-minded reasons given for real-politik or de-facto imperial aspirations.

One could have written off also religion even at the time of Nietzsche, but religion and faith is still important even in this Millennium. So no need for the autopsy of religion either. Philosophical views and ideologies die only when they are thoroughly replaced, not when they are generally accepted, have achieved their main objectives and are old textbook stuff that no current university student gets excited about. Yet they aren't replaced, they just seem very bland as they aren't new ideas. What likely happens is that when the main objectives have been achieved and the thinking has been generally accepted, the orthodox believers come up with a next wave, which in the end is likely something hilariously stupid.

With liberalism it's I guess the libertarians with the most vocal being perhaps the anarcho-capitalists, who think that rights of the individual mean that everything collective is bad and everything can be handled by the market mechanism. And some of them come even to this forum to share their enthusiasm when their first "philosopher" they've read has been Ayn Rand. We now how that will go.

The death of Enlightenment and it's values is even more dubious. Not every Western country has a Trump administration chipping away the institutions that make Western democracies themselves and filling the void with corruption and a police state. I think there's a lot more focus on Enlightenment values because of what is happening in the US.

T Clark

Isn't one of the first things the Dao de jing tells us that 'the Dao that can be named is not the real or eternal Dao', essentially indicating that logos or reason cannot be primary. — ChatteringMonkey

Short answer—yes. Longer answer—yes, but. The line after the one you’ve quoted goes—“the name that can be named is not the eternal name.” As I understand it, naming is what humans do—conceptualization, reason. In a sense, Taoism is an anti-intellectual philosophy. This is from Verses 70 and 71 of Steven Mitchell’s translation of the Tao Te Ching.

My teachings are easy to understand
and easy to put into practice.
Yet your intellect will never grasp them…

…Not-knowing is true knowledge.
Presuming to know is a disease.
First realize that you are sick;
then you can move toward health.

This is from Ziporyn’s translation of the Chuang Tzu, the second founding text of Taoism.

Any rectification that requires hooks, ropes, compass, or T-square is really a hacking up of the inborn nature. Any consolidation that requires ropes, cords, or glues is really an invasive attack on the intrinsic powers. And bending and scraping before ritual and music, warmly eulogizing humankindness and responsible conduct “to comfort the hearts of everyone in this world”—all that is really just a way of destroying the normal and sustainable state of things. The normal and sustainable state of things is to curve without needing a hook, to be straight without needing a carpenter’s line, to be round without needing a compass, to be angled without needing a T-square, to be attached without needing glue, and bound together without needing cords.

On the other hand, Taoism is full of seeming contradictions and paradoxes. This is from Verses 25 and from Mitchell’s translation.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness…

Mystery and manifestations—as I understand it, the Tao and human conceptualized reality—come from the same place. The Tao it’s not above or better than the human world, they arise and return together.

Tom Storm

↪T Clark

Interesting points. Do you hold a similar view about reason? I fell out of love with reason some years ago.

Wayfarer

↪Tom Storm

Yeah shows :rofl:

Tom Storm

↪Wayfarer

Ha! Well, reason is just a tool, the atheists and the theists often assume they can demonstrate the superiority of their metaphysics with reason. They can certainly use it to give a sheen to their prejudices, but to what extent is it merely a post hoc rationalization of affective commitments? But I am not saying we can avoid its use, as this paragraph partly demonstrates.

Jamal

reason is just a tool — Tom Storm

As Wayfarer might be about to point out, this is the problematic Enlightenment notion of reason which is in question.

Tom Storm

↪Jamal

I'd probably share Evan Thompson's view that reason is situated, embodied, enactive and emerges from our lived, affective engagement with the world. Reason is not a detached faculty that can apprehend universal truths on its own; it’s shaped by biology, culture, experience. Truth claims therefore are always embedded in context, practice, and perspective.

Jamal

↪Tom Storm

Yeah that's more like it :grin:

Wayfarer

↪Tom Storm

Better! I’m going through Mind in Life although finding it a difficult read. But my Christian cultural heritage has instilled in me a conviction that reason is somehow knitted into the grand scheme, not that there aren’t also things beyond it. Overall my orientation is nearer the rationalists than the empiricists.

Tom Storm

↪Wayfarer

I find what I can understand of his perspective very sympathetic to my own intuitions, but that only speaks to my own prejudice. It is hard material to fully comprehend, like most phenomenology. I am happy to lurk on the outer boundaries, occasionally catching an insight.

Jamal

Mind in Life — Wayfarer

Sent me to sleep, that one. I may try again one day.

Wayfarer

↪Jamal

Yes unfortunately me too. It’s pitched to the academic profession with all the necessary armour-plating. But Evan Thompson is just one of the people in the academic world I really like. I listened to a couple of conversations with he and Vervaeke earlier this year. (Fun fact - both Uni of Toronto, Vervaeke covered for Thompson when the latter was over-booked and couldn’t deliver a lecture series.)

↪Tom Storm

Tom Storm

↪Wayfarer

I need to listen to those.

Wayfarer

↪Tom Storm

https://youtu.be/SkEWWdDWDBg?si=oLwi5aFDaFs6fAKp

https://youtu.be/8FEYm8ehaTE?si=UGZHgVDvIEviIrG9

Tom Storm

:up: :up:

ChatteringMonkey

↪T Clark

On the other hand, Taoism is full of seeming contradictions and paradoxes. This is from Verses 25 and from Mitchell’s translation.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness…

Mystery and manifestations—as I understand it, the Tao and human conceptualized reality—come from the same place. The Tao it’s not above or better than the human world, they arise and return together. — T Clark

I wouldn't say the Tao is above or better than human conceptualisation of it in a directly valuative sense, but prior ontologically... the human world is part of it. And insofar conceptualisation is only partial/perspectival, and presumably can lead us astray for that reason, maybe it is a reason to put a little less stock in it.

EDIT: To make the point a bit more salient for this discussion maybe, that is the issue with the Socratic view on Life, and Christianity consequently, that it presumes that it can box in Chaos, conceptualise the whole of it and make life entirely predictable and planable on the basis of these fixed conceptions.

From revelations, 2.1

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea (read 'no more Chaos'). 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

Blinded by the light!

Leontiskos

I'd probably share Evan Thompson's view that reason is situated, embodied, enactive and emerges from our lived, affective engagement with the world. Reason is not a detached faculty that can apprehend universal truths on its own; it’s shaped by biology, culture, experience. Truth claims therefore are always embedded in context, practice, and perspective. — Tom Storm

I think this is soothing contemporary boilerplate. As you say, it is what resonates with contemporary intuitions. It is also the overcorrection from Enlightenment rationalism.

Reason and universalization are more or less the same thing. To be fully situated and not universal or general is not to be reason at all.

The clearest problem with relativism is that it is self-refuting. When you say something like this:

Truth claims therefore are always embedded in context, practice, and perspective. — Tom Storm

...Are you making a truth claim that is embedded in context, practice, and perspective, or not? If you're not, then you're engaged in a performative self-contradiction. If you are, then it's not clear how you can make a categorical claim about, "context, practice, and perspective," in the sense that your truth claim intrinsically purports to "stand over" such realities and account for them in a universal way. If one talks about a reality with the word "always," then they are "standing over" that reality in a universal way.

More simply, if you say, "Truth claims are always context-dependent," then you've contradicted yourself, because you are uttering a truth claim that you believe is not context-dependent. This sort of self-contradiction is inevitable for anyone who tries to make reason non-universalizing.

Leontiskos

But my Christian cultural heritage has instilled in me a conviction that reason is somehow knitted into the grand scheme, not that there aren’t also things beyond it. — Wayfarer

I want to say that anyone who holds that there is a "grand scheme" will tend to see reason as bound up in that grand scheme. Stoicism is a clear example of this, but it is also present in the various forms of Platonism and Aristotelianism.

Tom Storm

More simply, if you say, "Truth claims are always context-dependent," then you've contradicted yourself, because you are uttering a truth claim that you believe is not context-dependent. This sort of self-contradiction is inevitable for anyone who tries to make reason non-universalizing. — Leontiskos

You make a common enough criticism of Thompson's position (and I guess that of many pragmatists and post-modernists) and it is a good one. All I can say is I don’t see it as a contradiction, because I’m not claiming (nor would Thompson) to step outside all contexts while saying this. I’m saying it from inside my own experience, and the claim includes itself. For me, truth isn’t something we reach from a perfect, universal viewpoint; it’s something we work out from where we stand. So when I say truth claims are context-dependent, I’m also saying this one is too. That doesn’t make it collapse, it just admits that I’m part of the same situation I’m talking about. The supposed contradiction only appears if we assume every truth claim has to speak from nowhere and apply everywhere, and I don’t accept that assumption. I’m trying to identify how truth actually shows up for us in lived life, not to lay down a rule that pretends to escape that life.

My understanding is that Thompson sees reason as emerging from our everyday experience and the ways we engage with the world, not from a detached, universal viewpoint. We develop our thinking through action, conversation, and the practices we inherit. He rejects the notion that this makes him a relativist: being aware that reasoning is 'situated' doesn’t mean all ideas are equally valid or that anything goes. On the contrary, some ways of thinking are better than others, and we can test, refine, and improve our ideas through experience, dialogue, and careful reflection. Thompson would probably acknowledge that reasoning is grounded in context but this doesn’t weaken it, it makes it more honest, responsible, and connected to how we actually understand and navigate the world.

Now I understand well that if a person holds an essentialist view of the world, in which reason accesses certain universal truths, then this view will be unsatisfying. This would be your view?

I’m not a philosopher, and I don’t mind being a creature of my time. Can you explain in simple terms why Thompson might be wrong? I suspect we don’t share certain key axioms, which might make a discussion difficult to navigate.

T Clark

Do you hold a similar view about reason? I fell out of love with reason some years ago. — Tom Storm

Perhaps you’ve noticed I talk about intuition much more than I talk about reason here on the forum. I generally say that much more of what we do, what we think, the decisions we make are done based on that intuition. Looking at my own experience, formal, systematic reason happens rarely and usually as a check on what I’ve come up with my other methods

I write the things I write here directly onto the “paper.” It’s when I go back and edit them that I have to deal with them more formally, at a distance, rationally.

frank

. For me, truth isn’t something we reach from a perfect, universal viewpoint; it’s something we work out from where we stand. So when I say truth claims are context-dependent, I’m also saying this one is too. — Tom Storm

Isn't it that the meaning of a sentence is context dependent? And both the sentence structure and its meaning emerge from social practices. It's confusing to say the truth claim is context dependent, because that suggests that the meaning of the sentence remains fixed, but it's truth varies depending on context.

Rather, make the meaning variable, depending on context, and truth is a property of propositions or statements, however inflated or deflated you take truth, that's a connected, but separate issue, right?

An Autopsy of the Enlightenment.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions