I think the early sceptics doubted convention and conventional ways of understanding, and cast doubt on the values imputed by those around them on such things as wealth, possessions, social status, respectability, the social contract, and the kinds of things that ‘everyone knows’ to be true. — Wayfarer
Doubt is not suspension of judgement, it's the questioning of the truth or validity of something based on reasons (e.g. some anomaly). Suspension of judgement would be something like agnosticism or indecision. — gurugeorge
If they are truly objects of perception, then necessarily they exist unperceived, so doubting that objects of perception exist unperceived doesn't make any sense. Generally, with odd exceptions like rainbows, objects of perception just are the kinds of things that exist unperceived (or: if it doesn't exist unperceived, then it wasn't an object of perception after all). You can easily verify the existence of unperceived objects by means of instruments (e.g. using a watch, shut your eyes and simultaneously take a picture with a camera with a timestamp). — gurugeorge
Yes, but you've given us no reason to take it seriously and to replace our ordinary use of "illusion" with it. It's just an imaginary usage, a flight of fancy that bears little relation to the ordinary, everyday concept of illusion. The ordinary use of "illusion" is contextual - illusion in relation to veridical perception, and one doubts perception based on reasons. Imagining a deceiving demon isn't a reason to doubt perception — gurugeorge
I think this is still true of the type of skepticism being discussed here, it's just that one of the "kinds of things that ‘everyone knows’ to be true" today is the scientific explanation for the world we experience through sense perception, the laws of physics etc. It's not necessarily that fewer people believe in non-physical entities like the soul or heaven, it's that they find it much harder to justify their belief in the language of the modern era and so skepticism becomes a useful tool, they must call into question the veracity of the modern description of the world in order to talk about their beliefs. This was simply not necessary for most of (modern) history because the modern description of the world contained entities like heaven and souls at the time, they were objects taken for granted to exist by most people. Indeed, the skeptics at the time would have been those who called the existence of such things into doubt. — Inter Alia
I think the 'conflict thesis' itself, and this way of viewing religious and scientific ideas as being in conflict, is the product of a particular cultural history, arising out of the complex relationship between religion and science in European history. — Wayfarer
I claim the theses which I mentioned in my last post, all of which you ignored. — PossibleAaran
I am currently having a certain sensory experience as I type these words. It is an experience I would describe as 'of a laptop'. The object of my experience is just that which I am aware of at that moment. Does that thing, 'the laptop', exist unperceived? — PossibleAaran
In short, I relate to your 'who says?" reaction and at the same time defend the primality of being in the world. My defense fits with your critique elsewhere in the thread of exaggerated skepticism. We aren't bodiless computers in an air-conditioned room searching for perfect string of symbols. We have to eat and breath and excrete just to survive as bodies. We have to interact as babies and children to learn language and become more or less fully human in an emotional sense long before we can indulge in epistemological niceties and pretend to pretend that the world isn't really there. Our world, the world our bodies and hearts live in, has to be in pretty good shape already (as the result of work and suffering) for us to soar with the strange and long words of the metaphysicians. Is this something I need to prove? Ah, but if this isn't 'obvious' to my conversational partners, how I can hope to relate to those who know neither work nor suffering? Those do can doubt the existence of the hammer as it smashes their thumb? Those for whom the eyes of the beloved are an illusion? — ff0
It can be used to justify literally any action whatsoever, yet it's basically populist, any popular religion, spirituality, or non-realist philosophy is included in the list of things we should not dismiss, but the wild fantasies of the clearly delusional are never thus defended despite the fact that we equally cannot disprove them. — Inter Alia
"We should not dismiss..." in my opinion is generally interpreted as we shouldn't argue against, judge as nonsense, ridicule those who believe in, or (more worryingly) should actually give state support to {insert spiritual activity here}. None of these actions, however, amount to the same thing as concluding that {insert spiritual activity here} is beyond all doubt wrong, they're just expressions of our current judgement, judgements that we must all make. — Inter Alia
We're not talking about action, we're talking about belief in the nature of the world. — T Clark
Naturalism has far too easy a time these days, with few sceptical challengers. Your acid metaphor is apt, since what tends to happen these days is alternatives to Naturalism are scoffed at and treated as absurd. I cannot count the number of articles I have read in which Idealism is dismissed as unbelievable, incredible, 'dead', or just plain silly. Theism gets a similar treatment, though to a lesser degree because it has been defended as of late by some capable philosophers. What tends to happen with Naturalism is that anyone who dares raise a challenge to it is insulted and discredited ad hominem. — PossibleAaran
It would seem that if someone comes up with some metaphysical idea and we all scoff at it as absurd, that's too skeptical we should apparently be more be believing of such an idea, but if someone presents the idea that things are pretty much as they seem, that's absurd and we should all be much more skeptical of that. I still don't feel like we've had any explanation as to why we should be that skeptical (no more, no less) only that logic allows us to be. — Inter Alia
The fact that you would have no problem with giving state money to meditation is exactly the sort of "action" in response to doubting the materialist definition that I'm talking about. What about funding fairy research, or hollow-earth expeditions, the idea that I can cure you with my mind? It seems basically like you're saying we should be more prepared to belive all the popular alternative metaphysics but we can obviously ignore all the 'crazy' ones. What I'm asking is by what standard these are to be judged? — Inter Alia
Why can I only doubt on the basis of some other things held to be true? — PossibleAaran
The two - external and internal - interact all the time. It is my position, and I'm not the only one, that the best way of looking at the world for me, most of the time is as a weaving together of what's outside and what's inside. The Tao Te Ching talks about human action bringing the world into existence. That makes a lot of sense to me - in a very practical and down to earth way. — T Clark
What I'm suggesting is that the realists do have a perfectly rational source for their belief which they themselves are satisfied with, it generally that realism (in the classic sense) seems like the 'default' position. The argument against that (that many people are religious or spiritual) makes the error I've outlined above, presuming these people are anti-realists when they are in fact more like reductive monists — Inter Alia
I agree and relate. I might speak of a whole that we organize with categories internal and external. The way it all flows together is hard to articulate. We have words enough for most purposes, but it's hard to say what it is like to be there perfectly. Fail again. Fail better. — ff0
What I'm suggesting is that the realist do have a perfectly rational source for their belief which they themselves are satisfied with, it generally that realism (in the classic sense) seems like the 'default' position. The argument against that (that many people are religious or spiritual) makes the error I've outlined above, presuming these people are anti-realists when they are in fact more like reductive monists. They're not deliberately suspending judgement on the existence of a soul, they think there is one and if someone invented a 'soul measuring device' it would proceed to detect one without trouble. — Inter Alia
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. — T Clark
This statement to me is one that attempts to specify to the intellect an objective reality. It is not what may be termed a subjective reality—such as which flavor of ice-cream tastes better—but, if the statement indeed corresponds to what is objectively real, a statement conveying an otherwise purely noumenal objective truth. — javra
Lots of philosophers want to do a kind of armchair science that's concerned with largely traditional entities. That's fine. Who am I to stop them? But this isn't the only way to practice 'philosophy.' It may even look artificial and bloodless from another perspective. — ff0
When you say "this statement" do you mean my statement about the Tao? — T Clark
If so, in my understanding, it has nothing to do with objective reality. In a sense, the Tao is the opposite of objective reality. It's an idea, an experience, that I find much more useful then the idea of objective reality. It's much more in line with how I see reality. — T Clark
So, in the sense I’ve previously denoted, “the Tao which cannot be expressed” is, then, a reference to what is here taken to be objective reality. (It is not a mere whim of fancy or a fleeting emotion—though, I take it affirmed by Taoism that it can nevertheless be experienced and, in this sense, simultaneously both felt and cognized) — javra
Transcendentals may be thought of as 'real but not objective', as they are prior to the division of subject and object. — Wayfarer
If it's truly a laptop you're perceiving then of course it exists unperceived. Laptops are just the sort of thing that exists unperceived, and you can check for yourself, in the way I outlined, that your laptop exists unperceived.
If you are talking about (abstracting away) your experience of the laptop, then it obviously doesn't exist unexperienced. — gurugeorge
So not only are you giving me an idiosyncratic definition of "doubt" without giving me any reason why I should follow you in your redefinition, you're also giving me an idiosyncratic definition of "object" without giving me any reason why I should follow you in that redefinition.
You may think you're revealing something profound and interesting, but from my point of view you're just redefining words in a way that creates a queer artificial mystery. No mystery exists in relation to the normal uses of the concepts, the mystery, the puzzle, only appears when one takes seriously your proposed redefinitions of those concepts.
But you will forgive me for being sceptical: why should I re-jig my concepts so that "object" means "experience-of-object?" — gurugeorge
You must use language to doubt, no? Which is to assume that language is coherent and represents what you wish to doubt in such a way that doubting it could make sense — Janus
You raise an interesting question. Can I coherently doubt that my language means what I think that it means? — PossibleAaran
So, in the sense I’ve previously denoted, “the Tao which cannot be expressed” is, then, a reference to what is here taken to be objective reality. (It is not a mere whim of fancy or a fleeting emotion—though, I take it affirmed by Taoism that it can nevertheless be experienced and, in this sense, simultaneously both felt and cognized) — javra
Trying to say what it is to be there and being sensitive and open to poetic failure is what, in my opinion, leads to statements that the true way cannot be spoken. — ff0
Hello, and thanks for a reply — javra
Philosophy, then, to me, is about the theories and discoveries which facilitate better experience of flow—at least in the long term, if not in the short. — javra
As an apropos, when you say “anti-philosophical” I intuitively hear “anti-interest/love for wisdom (Sophia as she’s been called)”. While I do uphold that wisdom concerning life is not the truth of experience/life itself, that it is the map and not the terrain, I nevertheless deem wisdom of great value. At any rate, I take it you have something else in mind when you use the term(?). — javra
In the statement “the true way”, either “true” is referencing a path that is regardless of what anybody might say or believe or, else, it is not. If it is, then the Tao that can’t be spoken which is inextricable from life and experience is—ahum—a “non-subjective actuality” (just made this term up, but I’m hoping it’s understood given my recent posts on this thread). If it is not, then the Tao is as subjective a reality as is one’s preference for ice-cream, no more metaphysically significant than the clothes one chooses to wear on any particular day. — javra
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.