Simply the fact that it exists, along with the commentarial tradition that grew up around it over the centuries. You can be agnostic (as I am) but still not assume that it's all simply historical delusion and myth. Many people put it all in the same category as computer games or fantasy novels; that is one of the manifestations of the cultural nihilism that we're discussing elsewhere. (And a lot of people are unknowingly nihilist.) — Wayfarer
I assume since you're an agnostic, that you also find the evidence to support a God lacking. — Sam26
Metaphysics doesn't serve any purpose. — Wayfarer
I read what you wrote and I'm quite confused about what you're trying to say. One the one hand you say metaphysics doesn't serve any purpose, and on the other you talk of metaphysics having served a purpose :sSo, like a ladder, once metaphysics has served its purpose it can be discarded. — Wayfarer
It seems to me that metaphysics is useful only to prove that your conception is possible. Metaphysics can prove possibility, never actuality. You'll never convince anyone of your metaphysical position by recounting metaphysics to them. Nobody gains any sort of insight through the reading or study of metaphysics, except insight into how reason, concepts, etc. work. In other words, you learn that metaphysics is useless, or only useful after the fact.As regards 'feeling differently' - I feel as though I did undergo a genuine Platonist epiphany a long time ago. Epiphanies are very elusive, they generally come and go in an instant. You could compare them to being out at night, and there's a lightning flash, and it reveals something amazing - just for long enough to see that it's there, and something about its nature - and then it falls dark again, but you still have a memory of what you saw.
In my case, it was the insight into the non-material reality of number. My very first post on philosophy forum was about this very idea. But when you try to explain it, you get funny looks.
Now, in that phrase above, I would not say of the 'intelligible things' that they 'clearly exist', but that they are real. They're real in a noetic or intelligible manner, but in a different mode to the reality of phenomenal objects. Whereas hardly anyone seems to get that there could be any other level or domain of being, than the phenomenal domain. You know the expression 'out there somewhere'? That is usually said of anything we might be considering the reality of - that it's 'out there somewhere', which denotes that it's real or that it exists. And for most of us, 'what exists' and 'what is real' are the same. We have an instinctive world-picture in which we picture ourselves as intelligent subjects in the world described by the natural sciences; and because it's instinctive, we're for the large part unaware of it; it's simply reality to us, it is 'what everyone thinks'. So seeing through that, or realising that it is literally just an attitude or mental construction - that does change you. Realising that 'what exists' - the phenomenal domain known to science - is only one slice or aspect or domain of reality, is indeed 'a realisation'. It's not simply understanding a verbal description. There's another Platonistic term, namely, metanoia, which nowadays is (unfortunately) translated as 'conversion', but it means something more profound than that. It's like a noetic transformation, a different way of understanding the nature of existence. And, sure, that does completely change how you 'feel' about life. — Wayfarer
Why are you upset? I can't follow what it is you're trying to say.Touché :-d — Wayfarer
So all the metaphysics in the world are completely useless, since metaphysics doesn't give you any insights. Spiritual practice, ie prayer, meditation, contemplation does. The spiritual practices change how you feel about the world - not metaphysics. — Agustino
No, it is literarily impossible to doubt when you have nothing to doubt. Doubting and disbelieving is a learned process that becomes possible only after you've already learned to believe and have come to believe a thousand and one things. — Agustino
Then you can't have a discussion, so you're really wasting your time here.Exactly. Belief is useless and unimportant. I'm only interested in knowledge. You make my point for me. — charleton
What you call knowledge are merely things you have faith in.This is simply nonsense.
1) You say some shit
2) I doubt that shit, based on knowledge. Faith based belief has nothing to do with it. — charleton
Sure, that doesn't mean that knowledge doesn't involve belief though.And belief is not knowledge. — charleton
No, that's not the traditional definition of belief. Have a look in the closest dictionary please. Here's one:Belief is a thing taken to be true regardless of evidence, information or reason. — charleton
Belief = conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
If you are familiar with philosophic tradition, you would know that many philosophers have defined knowledge as justified true belief. So I don't see how I'm being dumb. You're just pretending I should accept what you say as if it is the most evident thing in the world. Clearly it's not, and that's not just for me, but for many people.This, although, can be confused with "knowledge" is not the same thing at all.
Why don't you stop and think for a second. I know you are not completely stupid.
Take the two definitions above as two ends of a spectrum. — charleton
So one can believe in the absence of evidence, or one can believe based on evidence right?You know damn well that some people accept and believe things without a reasonable warrant. But on the other end of the spectrum there is such a thing as rigorous method that leads to near certain knowledge. — charleton
So one can believe in the absence of evidence, or one can believe based on evidence right? — Agustino
Right, so you believe something based on reasons - evidence is an empty word. Reasons are just other things you believe. Ultimately we have to reach something that you believe for its own sake, because it is self-evident to you. Those are things you take as properly basic, that you believe on faith.With Knowledge I do not employ Faith. I use previsional trust that my information is correct, until I discover contrary information. — charleton
I never said belief is equal to knowledge. I asked you some specific questions, can you please focus and answer my questions, and not talk about things that I haven't yet asked you about?For example "I believe that we are all equal", does not mean that I know we are equal, or that we are equal. This is a moral value that I hold as an aspiration. A aspiration that we deserve to all be treated equally before the law.
The clumsy use of the term "belief" here above is not tantamount to knowledge in any sense.
Am I getting through? — charleton
I failed to make a distinction between knowledge and unjustified belief. Can you explain how? — Agustino
Can you also explain what justifies belief? (and please don't tell me evidence, explain what evidence consists of). — Agustino
Does prima facie evidence differ from 'evidence at first glance' or apparent evidence? — Janus
which wants lead to dissipation and which to flourishing — Janus
appears obvious but if allowed just a bit of skepticism, one could ask "what if from deep down we are not?"Since we are social beings — Janus
I believe you have been satisfied with the reasons given so far. I read the most apparent answer is because thinkers consider it as "that whereof we cannot speak".So, why single out religious faith for our criticism? — TheMadFool
Kant wants to formulate universal moral imperatives. In other words he wants to reduce morality to a set of rules, all of which may be rationally justified by just one maxim:
Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. — 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.