How does "real" understanding differ from understanding? What do you imagine understanding to be? And what does it mean to "perceive" understanding? Until you're 1) clear on usage and 2) stop using loaded language, you're being incoherent.Interesting, so it seems as thought you don't really understand how you come to perceive understanding itself. — 3017amen
I keep asking you for clarity because I do not know either what you mean or what your words mean. You ignore the request but keep using the words - and that's abusive. And I strongly suspect you do not know what they mean either. What do you suppose truth is? And what would a subjective truth be? — tim wood
How does "real" understanding differ from understanding? What do you imagine understanding to be? And what does it mean to "perceive" understanding? Until you're 1) clear on usage and 2) stop using loaded language, you're being incoherent.
If you have any point to make, now is the time to make it. — tim wood
Meaning, then, that it - whatever it is - is true? Or that the criteria of truth in this case is simply that the individual holds it so?Subjective truth: a truth that, primarily, matters to the individual. Does that help? — 3017amen
Your question seems to be, Is something-we-don't-know-what-it-is more important - and we don't know what that means although we've asked more than once - than, than what? Something? Something in particular? Anything? Everything? Nothing?Does your statement "The difference lies in what I (can) make of it.
— tim wood " mean that subjective truth is more important to you? — 3017amen
Meaning, then, that it - whatever it is - is true? Or that the criteria of truth in this case is simply that the individual holds it so? — tim wood
question seems to be, Is something-we-don't-know-what-it-is more important - and we don't know what that means although we've asked more than once - than, than what? Something? Something in particular? Anything? Everything? Nothing? — tim wood
Verbs are really very helpful.The nature of your understanding, your existence, the thing-in-itself. — 3017amen
No. And you never will until you settle on some meaning of your own. What is a "sense" of understanding? What does that even mean? What is "subjective" as you use it here? And is that an "or" or an "of"?And so, it appears that you are not clear on how to articulate your own sense of understanding. Otherwise, it seems the only thing you do know is, a type of subjective understanding or truth, that you yourself seem to have. Did I interpret that correctly? — 3017amen
Both not. Or do you mean that saying it's so makes it so?Meaning, then, that it - whatever it is - is true? Or that the criteria of truth in this case is simply that the individual holds it so?
— tim wood
Both, no? — 3017amen
The question is, do you hold your sense of understanding and truth more important than someone else's? And your answer is... ? — 3017amen
No. And you never will until you settle on some meaning of your own. What is a "sense" of understanding? What does that even mean? What is "subjective" as you use it here? And is that an "or" or an "of"? — tim wood
Meaning, then, that it - whatever it is - is true? Or that the criteria of truth in this case is simply that the individual holds it so?
— tim wood
Both, no? — 3017amen
Both not. Or do you mean that saying it's so makes it so? — tim wood
The question is, do you hold your sense of understanding and truth more important than someone else's? And your answer is... ? — 3017amen
And here I close. Because I can get no sense from you, and you ignore my requests for clarity. Well, two can play - and one necessarily. If you have a point, you have been careful to avoid making it. Bye. — tim wood
It might not at first seem to figure. But each of us does reach this fork in the road. Although many might just follow the herd, those who are inquisitive will give it some thought. Also on a larger scale it might figure. Religion, has for millennia, been adopted as a means to steer the population. Likewise the population has been steered absent religion towards rabid capitalism, the verge of nuclear annihilation, or moral collapse.Explain how an ultimate "issue" makes an existential difference one way or another to proximate beings like us.
Quite, also we might be intimately involved in a myriad of process beyond our comprehension, or preview.Indeed. I think it was in cognitive science's William James who said, in his book about The Varieties of Religious Experiences: "Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation.".
This argument is problematic because the other side of the debate will just dismiss it as sentimentality, or a natural bonding emotion. It eludes to a greater problem for the atheist position. Which is the problem of distinguishing a universe which is purely a happenstance of dust, from a universe which is entirely created by a God. How would they differ? This question is impossible to answer in the absence of a control, a universe confirmed one way, or the other to compare with.So another question for the Atheist is, if Love can't do what instinct does (or if it's an ancillary/redundant feature of consciousness) to effect survival needs, why should Love exist, what is its purpose? Surely it's not needed to procreate, when instinct is all that's needed... ? Is Love a Universal truth? How does Atheism square the metaphysical circle?
This is a discussion of positions on Gods amongst philosophers, so all avenues are relevant to the discussion. When it comes to the wider world, it doesn't figure and the jury is out when it comes to whether religion is a benefit, or a problem in the development and survival of the species.It's always either reason or unreason. What's your pleasure? Or have you already told us it's unreason.
Quite, also we might be intimately involved in a myriad of process beyond our comprehension, or preview. — Punshhh
This argument is problematic because the other side of the debate will just dismiss it as sentimentality, or a natural bonding emotion. It eludes to a greater problem for the atheist position. Which is the problem of distinguishing a universe which is purely a happenstance of dust, from a universe which is entirely created by a God. How would they differ? This question is impossible to answer in the absence of a control, a universe confirmed one way, or the other to compare with. — Punshhh
don't think atheism is in a business of coming up with ad hoc answers to anything, it's just open-ended anything-but theism. — jorndoe
don't share your belief — jorndoe
jorndoe
999
@3017amen, I don't think atheism is in a business of coming up with ad hoc answers to anything, it's just open-ended anything-but theism.
You may harp on about others that don't share your belief, yet until you've justified it sufficiently there isn't anything to respond to here.
Not that it's about you or I, it's about theism. — jorndoe
interesting — 3017amen
Not really. There really isn't much to it. If you'd read it as-is, that is. — jorndoe
anything, it's perhaps more interesting that you see it as another opportunity to launch presumptuous questions and slightly misrepresentative commentary, while still not even attempting to justify your faith sufficiently) — jorndoe
"mys·ti·cismPersonally, I practice mysticism, — Punshhh
participating in this thread if it's not interesting — 3017amen
hiding behind ad hominem — 3017amen
I'm a Christian Existentialist — 3017amen
↪Frank Apisa, if I'm understanding you right, the agnosticism you're on about isn't theism. Whatever 3017amen is on about apparently is. — jorndoe
What wasn't particularly interesting was noted in the comment, which isn't the same as this thread. — jorndoe
s'well, now you just have to justify why you've got it right and others ought believe so as well, that's what might be interesting here (we'll see) — jorndoe
Really? No reason to suspect?I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible); — Frank Apisa
tim wood
4.8k
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
— Frank Apisa
Really? No reason to suspect? — tim wood
How about my flying purple hippopotami? Btw, they're invisible, incomprehensible, unknowable. Of course you have no reason to suspect they cannot exist - or do you? — tim wood
Do you have any reasons to suspect gods CANNOT exist?
Share them. We can discuss the reasons. — Frank Apisa
I agree, but for different reasons. My point was though, that it gives to much wriggle room for the atheist.I don't see it problematic at all. It's relative to the Metaphysical features of consciousness, which are different from that of Darwinian instinct. The analogies would be mathematical ability and/or musical genius. Neither of which confer any biological advantages in providing for survival of the fittest.
Materialism is blind, in the sense that it ignores any consideration of origin other than what is provided by the speculation of scientists. And takes for granted, indeed crystallises around the simplistic concepts* of the constitution of material as described by science.Similarly, if the atheist cosmological argument centers around materialism, it fails. As it relates to conscious existence, atheist Dennett acquiesced to the phenomenon of qualia, which is simply a euphemism for Metaphysical phenomenon from consciousness.
But you allude to a blind spot in materialism, which reduces all such aspects of consciousness to the material products of the evolution of material.In short, Love is not needed for survival yet is a universally intrinsic and/or an innate feature of conscious existence. As it relates to musical and mathematical ability respectively, how could this (Love) universally subjective, yet seemingly objective truth, be so critical to the human condition?
Really we require a universe known to originate from dust alone to compare with our own, otherwise we will go around in circles philosophically.That is just one of many things that relate to our self-awareness which is in itself, distinct from emergent properties of instinct.
I think you will find that trying to tie down Mystics is harder than herding cats (just like philosophers)."mys·ti·cism
belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender."
That is a reasonable distillation into a sentence.Is this about right?
Knowledge via rational thought is secondary to other forms of knowledge.If it's about knowledge, that's reason, yes? No? The mind posits something beyond itself, called here god, that by definition cannot be known - and then some fools proceed to claim to know about it.
In day to day life, yes. But Mystics tend to be interested in reality rather than practicality.Is not this better? That the mind supposes something beyond itself and then applies its powers to understanding what that idea might mean, imply, reveal, learning what thinking and reason might offer.
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.