Is mankind just a more advanced animal? Is intelligence just a more advanced animal instinct and intelligence? — 3017amen
from the Empiricist point of view, man should be capable only of what an animal in which sense-knowledge had reached its highest point of development would be capable of; though, as a matter of fact, this same animal, namely, the Empiricist philosopher himself, uses supra-animal intelligence and supra-animal universal ideas, without admitting it.
Oh, I would think there is. It is quite justified to not fault the method, when it is at least possible, if not probable, the use of it is the sole and complete fault. If it’s 50/50, it becomes proper NOT to fault the method alone, in disregard of its use, which is what I said. In order to prove the method at fault, it must be shown that irrationality is impossible, which historical precedent determines not to be the case.
————- — Mww
The impossibility of the absence of another method presupposes the method necessarily, the validity of which has yet to be established with any apodeictic certainty; such method being only an idea, or at best, a mere notion, the conceptual predicates for it being highly arguable.
————- — Mww
What is faith, but rationality without the ground of experience, or, which is the same thing, empirical knowledge? As such, it is not so much a different methodology, but rather, the same methodology operating under different conditions. It follows that it may be all well and good to have faith in that for which experience is merely possible, but it is not all well and good to have faith in that for which experience contradicts. Otherwise, the Earth would still be the center of the universe. — Mww
Now the typical rejoinder is: do you have faith in your perceptions, or, do you have faith that reason isn’t fooling you? Or that the fundamental laws of logic and mathematics are universally and necessarily irrefutable? Then it becomes a question of whether not yet having sufficient reason to doubt is the same as having faith. I suppose semantically it is, but still, that doesn’t magically turn faith into an entirely different methodology distinguishable from rationality. Technically, to have faith alone as a determinant quality is nothing more than using rationality without regard for its intrinsic logical legislation, again, in conformity to, and justified by, experience. — Mww
No. That is fideism. — Wayfarer
We may define “faith” as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of “faith.” — Bertrand Russell
Faith: requires no evidence
Rationality: requires evidence
Are they not different? — TheMadFool
Thomas was nevertheless an apostle of Christ — Wayfarer
The other point about this is, only certain kinds of ‘evidence’ are credible in scientific method - reputable, third-party, and so on. You yourself might see a UFO out for a walk one day, but you would never be able to prove that according to scientific method. No matter what you saw, your report would just be ‘anecdotal evidence’ — Wayfarer
But the fact remains that he (Thomas), unlike others who accepted the resurrection on faith, wanted and was given evidence. — TheMadFool
Indeed. Thereby giving the lie to fideism. — Wayfarer
Strange. Is it not true that you just used a collection of symbols to point to the truth and reality of the relationship between symbols and what is true? Are we suppose to take what you just asserted as the truth about symbols and truth?Truth can not be contained in any philosophy, because the truth is what's real, and any philosophy any one might come up with is merely a collection of symbols which point very imperfectly to the real. To confuse a philosophy, any philosophy, with the truth is like confusing a highway sign pointing to the next town with the town itself. — Hippyhead
Faith: requires no evidence. Rationality: requires evidence
Are they not different? — TheMadFool
So, is reason fooling us or not? — TheMadFool
In my view, faith is in some sense an intuition of realities that are over our cognitive horizon; it’s the sense of an order that seems implicit in nature, which we can’t quite pinpoint. That, I think, is a pretty good minimalist definition. — Wayfarer
Rationality imposes many duties on a person and one of them is to be skeptical in a global sense - everything must be doubted - and that includes rationality itself. — TheMadFool
to wit that it's just one method of removing doubt and there may be other, possibly better, methods out there to tackle the problem of doubt. — TheMadFool
How would we know X is better than rationality? — TheMadFool
Mine: faith is the acceptance as true that which is indemonstrable, — tim wood
Verificationism (also known as the Verifiability Criterion of Meaning or the Verification Principle) is the doctrine that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false (i.e. verifiable or falsifiable).
'The current usage [of naturalism] derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed “naturalists” from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit”.
but fiercely rejected as truth claims in any other sense. And the consequences of this attitude extends well beyond the bounds of academic philosophy. — Wayfarer
Liberal secularism is itself a violent regulator of ‘private’ belief. You can believe whatever you like, provided you do not believe that your personal beliefs are actually objectively true, or matter in any public way. You can have whatever personal loyalties you like, provided you give uncompromising public loyalty to the state in which you are born, to the liberal and secular laws it mandates, . . . in reality, we have a single public cultus, and private cultus pluralism. . . . Because the realm of objectivity is tightly conceptually tied to mere facticity and mere instrumental efficacy, technology has increasingly displaced humanity in the arena of public power. — Paul Tyson, De-fragmenting Modernity
Explore? There's no avoiding it: I call the lie, that is ultimately a vicious lie. And what is the lie? That the matters of faith are real. They are ideas. If you or anyone were honest about your efforts, you would first acknowledge what your subjects are. Then you would explore them as they are where found, in situ, so to speak. But what is the universal practice? To insist that the subject matter is real, that it is out there rather than in here. And when requested to show that any criteria for being real have been met, the cry of foul goes up. I do not know where Trump learned his Trumpianism, but he might well have learned it in almost any church! Deny, deny, deny the simple truth, hit back harder.I believe many of the ideas I'm trying to explore are legitimately (and fundamentally) a part of the philosophical corpus, but note how they often provoke the response: you can't say that, it's religion. — Wayfarer
Kant uses many and assorted (distorted?) descriptors for reason, but doesn’t posit or indicate that “reason transcends nature” — Mww
And what is the lie? That the matters of faith are real. They are ideas. — tim wood
Indeed. Ideas are certainly real. But not real in any material sense. Not any part of what is usually meant by material reality. Sez I.Ideas are real. — Wayfarer
Indeed. Ideas are certainly real. But not real in any material sense. Not any part of what is usually meant by material reality. Sez I. — tim wood
Physics is the question of what matter is. Metaphysics is the question of what is real. People of a rational, scientific bent tend to think that the two are coextensive—that everything is physical. Many who think differently are inspired by religion to posit the existence of God and souls; Nagel affirms that he’s an atheist, but he also asserts that there’s an entirely different realm of non-physical stuff that exists—namely, mental stuff. The vast flow of perceptions, ideas, and emotions that arise in each human mind is something that, in his view, actually exists as something other than merely the electrical firings in the brain that gives rise to them—and exists as surely as a brain, a chair, an atom, or a gamma ray.
Indeed. Ideas are certainly real. But not real in any material sense. Not any part of what is usually meant by material reality. Sez I. — tim wood
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.