John Dewey thought it possible to make moral judgments on what I think would be called an "objective" basis without bringing God into play. I find it hard to believe that any "crisis" exists, myself, though I don't doubt some do. — Ciceronianus the White
Dewey thought that the traditional philosophical questions were misguided and misleading. So, as far as I know, he never addressed a question like "What is the meaning of life?" or "What is the purpose of life?" As a result, it's not easy to say what his answer to those questions might be, nor is it easy to summarize his positionWhy should growth and education give meaning and purpose? The idea seems silly to me. Did Dewey attempt to defend such a proposition in any of his works? — Ron Cram
...a moment of decision: continue to wax nostalgic for some other-wordly paradise so as to better secure the triumph of nihilism, or affirm instead the joyful immanence of this world, freed from the stifling and deadening (non-)sensibilities of Platonism. A very welcome crisis. — StreetlightX
How can one "affirm the joyful immanence of this world" without acknowledging the transcendent? — Mariner
note that experiments, in their nature, are not the kind of thing that can be 'demarcated — StreetlightX
Early Christianity saw the universe as sort of breathing in and out. Everything comes into being in a massive exhalation that just naturally becomes a returning inhalation. Could you explain where transcendence is in that scenario? — frank
This worldview is not specifically "early Christian", though there are early Christian representatives of it. — Mariner
The cyclical aspect of the metaphor ("coming out and going back") does not detract from the identification of some being (which is emphatically not the everyday beings which we meet in our ordinary lives), which is exhaling and inhaling, and which is, well, transcendent to our routine experience. — Mariner
he mystic says that there's a way to understand that those lungs are not separate from you. — frank
The lungs are not separate from me, I am not separate from other beings, they are not separate from the lungs, the breath that was being exhaled centuries ago is not separate from me or from the breath that will be exhaled in another aeon, etc. etc. etc.
The consubstantiality of being (if we want to be technical rather than poetical; not necessarily a good thing). — Mariner
God is indeed dead if he is construed to be separate from anything. Which is how [Western] Christians, by and large, construed God in the 19th century (and some centuries before -- not all, though). Nietzsche's critique is dead on :D when it is aimed at the right target. — Mariner
Can you explain further? I have no difficulty in demarcating experiments from non-experiments. — Mariner
I was browsing the Internet about Dewey, Nietzsche and nihilism and came across this, regarding the author's journey from Nietzsche to Dewey, which you might find interesting :http://www.johndeweysociety.org/dewey-studies/files/2018/02/4_DS_1.2.pdf — Ciceronianus the White
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.