Now, we have a lot of questions about God, life, and such. But, aren't these questions epistemically inchoate? — Posty McPostface

If we take the idea of "What should we humans be aiming for in life"? That would be a rather vague question, but it can be broken down and made more concrete by explication. Is your criteria for inchoate, that it can be answered in too many ways for there to be any common ground to advance any position? If so, I may have to agree with that. However, if by inchoate you mean that it cannot be fleshed out, then I don't agree as clearly anyone can make claims about the subject matter that advance a position in this or that direction.

Is your criteria for inchoate, that it can be answered in too many ways for there to be any common ground to advance any position? — schopenhauer1

Yes. It is too vague a question for there to be useful agreement on.

I would phrase this in terms of the limits of the analytic approach. These things are understood globally, not locally. What Billy means by 'God' or 'truth' is a function of Billy's entire personality. If you want to know what Billy means, you have to listen to Billy as a whole. You have to 'become' Billy via empathy and learning the language of Billy.

As far as epistemology relates to these matters, the situation is similar. A person can try with limited success to formalize their epistemological way of being. But much of what is going on is 'behind' any particular sentence. This connects to your post on attitudes. 'Attitude' points at a global approach or a fundamental grasping of existence in a certain way. This fundamental grasping is not the sort of thing that can be squeezed into a few sentences (or, if so, only with great talent via an apt metaphor.)And this strong metaphor as metaphor doesn't give itself way cheaply. It requires interpretation.

We might say that an atomic approach (a low level epistemology that analyzes single words) toward God, ethics, aesthetics, etc. attempts to make this approach easier by making it impersonal and algorithmic. In some ways it offers individuals a way to hide from the depth of the questions behind some inherited and unquestioned method. Lots of public intellectuals fill their fans with a sense of their supreme 'rationality.' And yet this concept of rationality is often shallow and has not been subjected to criticism. So we end up with a 'rational' mob.

Final thought: there can be and already is lots of great writing on God, ethics, aesthetics (the 'hard' and 'holy' stuff.) Perhaps the only problem is assuming a particular argumentative approach toward these matters. Why should they be approached quasi-scientifically? Why should we focus on whether they are true as opposed to how they are true in context? What about 'Nothing human is alien to me' ? Approaching in this way, the point is not to prove or disprove but to understand so that one's existence is enriched and one's world is widened.

I would phrase this in terms of the limits of the analytic approach. — macrosoft

Yes, what are these limits and how do they dictate discourse?

As far as epistemology relates to these matters, the situation is similar. A person can try with limited success to formalize their epistemological way of being. But much of what is going on is 'behind' any particular sentence. This connects to your post on attitudes. 'Attitude' points at a global approach or a fundamental grasping of existence in a certain way. This fundamental grasping is not the sort of thing that can be squeezed into a few sentences (or, if so, only with great talent via an apt metaphor.)And this strong metaphor as metaphor doesn't give itself way cheaply. It requires interpretation. — macrosoft

Very good post. I think, the limits of our world limit effective discourse. So, some moderator is required to moderate the crowds. How do you implement that is another question worth pursuing.

aren't these questions epistemically inchoate? — Posty McPostface

Not if they’re explored in the context of a ‘domain of discourse’. The reason they’re ‘inchoate’ is because of the chaotic state of culture.

Not if they’re explored in the context of a ‘domain of discourse’. The reason they’re ‘inchoate’ is because of the chaotic state of culture. — Wayfarer

What do you mean by that?

Domains of discourse are just as the name implies - a cultural milieu within which terms and concepts have an agreed meaning such that participants in the discourse have a baseline set of understandings and references which they understand. Those are often embodied in mythic narratives and the role of heroes; think the Bible and classical literature and art, the Ramayana, the Bhagavad Gita. That is what culture is. But it is just those kinds of domains of discourse which are being dissolved in the acid of modernity and globalisation. It is possible to re-imagine the substance of those myths in modern terms but it’s not at all easy.

But it is just those kinds of domains of discourse which are being dissolved in the acid of modernity and globalisation. It is possible to re-imagine the substance of those myths in modern terms but it’s not at all easy. — Wayfarer

Can you expand on the "acid of modernity and globalization"? I think this is an assault on liberalism; but, am unsure.

I believe in liberalism but not scientific materialism.

I believe in liberalism but not scientific materialism. — Wayfarer

True, that. Good point. I don't believe in liberalism at all, that is without regulation.

Going off on a tangent. I think epistemically inchoate questions are rife in philosophy. One cannot encounter them without introducing a dialectical method to philosophy.

What do you think @unenlightened?

I mean, WHO knows these things?

Why do we even bother?

Knowing that you don’t know something is vastly preferable to thinking you know something you don’t.

Knowing that you don’t know something is vastly preferable to thinking you know something you don’t. — Wayfarer

What do you mean??

What do you think unenlightened? — Posty McPostface

I'm not sure what you're asking. Whenever Mrs un asks me what I'm thinking, I say 'nothing special.'

And then she says 'what's special about it?' , and I say 'that it's me thinking about it.'

Does that help?

I'm not sure what you're asking. — unenlightened

I'm asking whether there is any merit to philosophical quietism? Or must we be loud and rambunctious about the issue of God, life, ethics, and so on?

In it we discussed that ethical questions cannot be intellectualized. — Posty McPostface

?? There are thousands of years of philosophy "intellectualizing"/analyzing ethical questions. So I'm not sure how we can say that it's not possible.

Yes. It is too vague a question for there to be useful agreement on. — Posty McPostface

"There is no useful agreement" (in your opinion--that's always going to be an opinion) is different than "this is not analyzable."

Philosophy is a field in which there is going to be continued disagreement about even the most fundamental claims. Some would even say that looking at philosophy as a field where we should be reaching widespread consensuses is essentially not getting what philosophy is about, because the gist of the discipline is its methodological tools, part of which involves regularly looking for and challenging various assumptions that are made in premises, in ideas of entailment, etc.

?? There are thousands of years of philosophy "intellectualizing"/analyzing ethical questions. So I'm not sure how we can say that it's not possible. — Terrapin Station

Yes, that is true. But, we are in constant disagreement even about the smallest of issues. Isn't that indicative of a flawed methodology?

Philosophy is a field in which there is going to be continued disagreement about even the most fundamental claims. Some would even say that looking at philosophy as a field where we should be reaching widespread consensuses is essentially not getting what philosophy is about, because the gist of the discipline is its methodological tools, part of which involves regularly looking for and challenging various assumptions that are made in premises, in ideas of entailment, etc. — Terrapin Station

Then what job does a philosopher have? A questioner of truth?

As maxim, 'when you have no idea, do not try to express it' has somewhat to recommend it. However, in this case even if you have no idea, you must answer with your life. You can call that systematically inchoate if you like, does it help?

As maxim, 'when you have no idea, do not try to express it' has somewhat to recommend it. However, in this case even if you have no idea, you must answer with your life. You can call that systematically inchoate if you like, does it help? — unenlightened

I don't know. Hence, my question.

I'm asking whether there is any merit to philosophical quietism? Or must we be loud and rambunctious about the issue of God, life, ethics, and so on? — Posty McPostface

I'd say look to the difference between a talk between friends and a kind of evangelism that insists it has THE truth. Some of the best and most deeply joyful conversations involve really connecting with someone on the grand and terrible issues of what life and death are all about. In these conversations we speak for ourselves from our own experiences. We try to meet in the middle (understanding one another) because there is already affection, respect, and curiosity. We are open. We don't just want to send or convert. And while we do hope for some amount of mirroring, we also hope to be surprised and learn.

I'd say look to the difference between a talk between friends and a kind of evangelism that insists it has THE truth. Some of the best and most deeply joyful conversations involve really connecting with someone on the grand and terrible issues of what life and death are all about. In these conversations we speak for ourselves from our own experiences. We try to meet in the middle (understanding one another) because there is already affection, respect, and curiosity. We are open. We don't just want to send or convert. And while we do hope for some amount of mirroring, we also hope to be surprised and learn. — macrosoft

True wisdom. Thanks!

But, how do you reach Rogerian agreements between such opposing views as supremacism or such matters?

Then what job does a philosopher have? A questioner of truth? — Posty McPostface

What if philosophy is something like the essence of being human? Or one of the highest modes of human existence? I think it is or at least can be.

What if philosophy is something like the essence of being human? Or one of the highest modes of human existence? I think it is or at least can be. — macrosoft

So, why so much disagreement about various issues? Is this just moral relativism stated another way?

Then what job does a philosopher have? A questioner of truth? — Posty McPostface

Basically, yes. It's a critical thinking toolkit. Expecting philosophy to build up some big cache of conclusions that have widespread consensus throughout the field amounts to not getting what philosophy is in my opinion.

Of course, some folks will say that I'm way off base in the above, but that's just the idea, isn't it?

It's the old joke re the "Two Laws of Philosophy:"

(1) For every philosopher, there is an equal and opposite philosopher.
(2) They're both wrong.

But, how do you reach Rogerian agreements between such opposing views as supremacism or such matters? — Posty McPostface

I do think there are limits. As I mentioned, we have to start with a minimum of affection, respect, and curiosity. A very strong or open spirit can feel its way into darker positions than most, but that's about it. Ultimately I think life is a mystery. And everything I say I can only say from my own experience, trusting but not quite sure that it will be intelligible or useful for others.

Basically, yes. It's a critical thinking toolkit. Expecting philosophy to build up some big cache of conclusions that have widespread consensus throughout the field amounts to not getting what philosophy is in my opinion.

Of course, some folks will say that I'm way off base in the above, but that's just the idea, isn't it?

It's the old joke re the "Two Laws of Philosophy:"

(1) For every philosopher, there is an equal and opposite philosopher.
(2) They're both wrong. — Terrapin Station

If that's true, then philosophers can agree on certain things. Why the disagreement?

As I mentioned, we have to start with a minimum of affection, respect, and curiosity. — macrosoft

What about sincerity?