I definitely feel that the linguistic approach of twentieth century philosophy was rather shallow. I have mixed feelings about postmodernism. In the way they look behind surfaces, but sometimes they seem to just deconstruct and lose sight of the original questions.

I like systems approaches, but also like to look out for new angles and insights because I refuse to believe that philosophy has reached its end, and that would make everything seem like it is the end of the world.

Which religion would that be? What are the important truths? — Athena

I believe that all religions attempt to culture an attitude of self-honesty. Whether they have an efficient method, or are successful, is another thing.

On the other hand, there is a liberal education and learning the higher-order thinking skills. That education leads to science AND good moral judgment. — Athena

"Good moral judgement" is insufficient for good moral actions. We all know that an individual might judge an action as wrong, yet still go through with it. This is why we need more than just to be educated in good moral principles, because such education does not necessitate good behaviour. That's what Socrates and Plato demonstrated in their refutation of the sophists who claimed to teach virtue for large sums of money.

Personally, I think we have two extremely important truths right now and that religion is a very serious problem right now because too many people are living a fantasy, and their fantasy could destroy life on the only planet we have. — Athena

I think the fantasy is the idea that science can give us morality. Sure, science might show us a lot of things which are wrong, and in many cases, it can even tell us what we ought to do, but it doesn't actually inspire us to do it.

Truth, stop filling the air with carbon and destroying the planet. — Athena

This is a good example. We all know that we ought to stop filling the air with carbon dioxide, but only a small portion of the people are actually doing anything significant to that end. How can a person honestly say "I ought not drive my car everyday", yet continue to drive the car everyday. Where is the self-honesty here?

I did wish to become an art therapist or a psychotherapist. However, there are very few jobs in this field. — Jack Cummins

I just learned that there is such a thing as a Logotherapist. Maybe that would be a job opportunity for someone philosophically inclined. I don't know anything about its efficacy, but its emphasis on finding meaning in life, sounds like a novel approach to depression and ennui. :smile:


Logotherapist : Logotherapy was developed by neurologist and psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, on a concept based on the premise that the primary motivational force of an individual is to find a meaning in life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logotherapy

https://themeaningseeker.org/logotherapy-training/

I would say that the decision to drop the bomb was a philosophical choice. It's a decision which required going beyond a direct application of scientific principles, and also beyond the direct application of religious principles. So the decision relies on some further intuition. Notice that the vast majority of any seemingly important decisions which we make on a day to day basis are like this. — Metaphysician Undercover

I would regard that decision as a pragmatic decision. The morality might have caused some doubt but ultimately that took second place. I’m not sure where I’d slot pragmatic thought.

Well I don't really agree, because philosophy addresses issues which fall out of the reach of formal logic.
So what it "falls back on" is an odd sort of reasoning, like abductive, which is better described as intuition rather than structured logic. — Metaphysician Undercover

An odd sort of reasoning it might be but it’s still reasoning and you can’t go against what are logical inferences otherwise it’s unreasonable to claim so.

We commonly make decisions to do things which would have huge import if we went another way, (like not to kill the person I am mad at for example) but we are already so culturally ingrained to recognize what we are doing as correct, through either the principles of religion, or science, that we don't even think about, or consider any alternatives. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is probably true. They are culturally ingrained. But as I hoped I suggested they are all in their own way about addressing the world and our place in it. The fact that philosophy and science might have “proved” God doesn’t exist doesn’t make it so. Each is a way of conceiving the world. Each seems to lose ground to another way of perceiving things. Science is under a degree of challenge these days because it doesn’t seem to be satisfying people and their concerns and in one sense they regard science as the problem. Climate Change is not cause by religion or philosophy.

An odd sort of reasoning it might be but it’s still reasoning and you can’t go against what are logical inferences otherwise it’s unreasonable to claim so. — Brett

But we very often do go against reason and logical inference, it's in our nature to do just that. That's the point I made in my post above, with '"Good moral judgement' is insufficient for good moral actions." We often know "I ought not do this", yet do it anyway. We don't necessarily act according to our logical inferences. It's best known as hypocrisy.

The fact that philosophy and science might have “proved” God doesn’t exist doesn’t make it so. — Brett

Here you actually demonstrate an instance of going against logic, being illogical or irrational. If you believe that philosophy and science have proven that God does not exist, then you'd be going against logical inferences to still believe in God. See, logic does not have the power to make us believe any particular logical inference, nor does it have the power to make us act in the way that we see as the reasonable or logical way.

Here you actually demonstrate an instance of going against logic, being illogical or irrational. — Metaphysician Undercover

No it doesn’t have the power to make us believe any logical inference or act in the way we see as reasonable. But if we do against that logical inference then we are, as you say, being illogical or irrational. Which is what you said about proving God does not exist being irrational, therefore breaking the structure of reason.

If you believe that philosophy and science have proven that God does not exist, then you'd be going against logical inferences to still believe in God. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, if someone themselves is convinced that logically God does not exist then your argument is correct.

But I’m saying though they might have proved that God doesn’t exist doesn’t make it so for me, so I would not be part of your thoughts on going against logic.

I hope I’ve explaining this well enough.

But I’m saying though they might have proved that God doesn’t exist doesn’t make it so for me, so I would not be part of your thoughts on going against logic. — Brett

If you say that they "proved God doesn't exist", then you accept their logic. And to believe otherwise would therefore be illogical. You didn't say that they attempted to prove that God doesn't exist, or that they failed to prove God doesn't exist, you said that they did prove it.

No I don’t accept their logic because I don’t believe they proved God did not exist. I’m saying it’s an assumption on their part that they’ve proven this.

Edit: which is not to say I would not be irrational in other circumstances.

But you still don’t think I’m correct in thinking that philosophy is structured on reason and that to go off the rails is irrational and therefore to be discarded as being of no use except to put us back on track?

No I don’t accept their logic because I don’t believe they proved God did not exist. I’m saying it’s an assumption on their part that they’ve proven this. — Brett

OK, that clarifies that, because the way you had said it implied that you believed they had proven it.

But you still don’t think I’m correct in thinking that philosophy is structured on reason and that to go off the rails is irrational and therefore to be discarded as being of no use except to put us back on track? — Brett

Well it depends on what you mean by "reason". If you allow that reason is other than structured formal logic, like mathematics and deduction, then we find that personal, idiosyncratic forms of logic like different types of abduction are still reasonable. Then a person's own form of idiosyncratic logic might bring one to conclusions inconsistent with conventional conclusions of science or religion, etc.. You might describe the person as "off the rails", but that person is still following some idiosyncratic form of logic and so can't be said to be irrational. Furthermore, it is possible that the reason why the person's conclusions are inconsistent with conventional conclusions is that the conventional conclusions are actually "off the rails". Therefore that person who uses some idiosyncratic form of abduction, who appears to be "off the rails", might really be the one required to put us back on track.

Therefore that person who uses some idiosyncratic form of abduction, who appears to be "off the rails", might really be the one required to put us back on track. — Metaphysician Undercover

But isn’t that my point. We still have to go back on track.

Furthermore, it is possible that the reason why the person's conclusions are inconsistent with conventional conclusions is that the conventional conclusions are actually "off the rails". — Metaphysician Undercover

That’s possible. But it still seems to me that if conventional conclusions are off the rails then something has gone wrong, that being the reasoning.

I imagine it’s possible with someone with schizophrenia to apply their reason to their problems, and it would make sense to them, one step leading logically to the next, but it’s based on irrationality, so it could no longer be called reason.

I as trying to think of some way of demonstrating how religion, philosophy and science are equal to each other in addressing the world.

Imagine a soldier in the WW1. He’s trapped in a bomb crater alone. He has a gun that he defends himself with, he can kill the opposing soldiers as they approach. He feel his rifle and ammunition will save him. Night comes. The bombing continues. He begins to pray to God, he pleads, cries and begs for intervention. Morning comes. He’s alive. He hears the enemy soldiers. He thinks about and decides that surrender is better than firing. He’d rather be a prisoner than be dead.

I imagine it’s possible with someone with schizophrenia to apply their reason to their problems, and it would make sense to them, one step leading logically to the next, but it’s based on irrationality, so it could no longer be called reason. — Brett

The point though, is on what basis would you deem it irrational? You cannot judge it as irrational relative to the conventional logic, because the conventional logic might really be the one that's off the rails. Therefore we must assume something else, God's logic or something like that, and say that it could be judged relative to God's logic, which would validate the conclusion that the person's logic might be irrational.

I as trying to think of some way of demonstrating how religion, philosophy and science are equal to each other in addressing the world. — Brett

I don't think we can say that they are equal. Some will value one more than the other. And, since one human convention may be incompatible with another, and the only way to assume that there is a real solution is an appeal to God, then religion which recognizes this must be higher than the others.

I don't think we can say that they are equal. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, that’s fair enough. What I meant was they have all served us over time, and each one relevant to what we understand at the time.

You cannot judge it as irrational relative to the conventional logic, because the conventional logic might really be the one that's off the rails. Therefore we must assume something else, God's logic or something like that, and say that it could be judged relative to God's logic, which would validate the conclusion that the person's logic might be irrational. — Metaphysician Undercover

In a way this, “God’s logic or something like that”, relates to my OP on “God and truth”.

If someone believed in the existence of God then they had a Truth to their life. Otherwise why would you believe it? If and when someone begins to doubt the existence of God and eventually repudiates that existence with what do they replace that Truth they had?

A couple of posts above, you brought in the term schizophrenia,for no apparent reason in the middle of an argument about irrationality. It just seemed a bit out of context and incongruous. There might be people on this forum who have been given this diagnosis. I am not implying that you do not understand the meaning of the term, but I still want to emphasise that the word, schizophrenia, should not be misused, in a colloquial sense, to imply a split personality.

A couple of posts above, you brought in the term schizophrenia,for no apparent reason in the middle of an argument about irrationality. It just seemed a bit out of context and incongruous. There might be people on this forum who have been given this diagnosis. I am not implying that you do not understand the meaning of the term, but I still want to emphasise that the word, schizophrenia, should not be misused, in a colloquial sense, to imply a split personality. — Jack Cummins

First of all you are implying that I don’t understand the term.

Second, I did not mention it for no apparent reason, nor was it out of context and incongruous.

Third, I’d like you to quote me where I said or used it colloquially to mean a split personality.

I am sorry if you think that I misinterpreted you. I just did not understand how the idea of schizophrenia, fitted into what you were saying at all.

I have been reading some of your discussion as I am in bed, unable to sleep. It seems that in your last post, you are concerned with what happens if a person stops believing in God and how do they replace this 'lost truth'. When someone has this experience it is because the idea of God does not represent the truth to them any longer. For some, it may feel sad, but for others, it may be liberating.

I am sorry if you think that I misinterpreted you. — Jack Cummins

You didn’t misinterpret me. You decided I needed correcting.

As you seem annoyed by my thinking you used the word schizophrenia out of context, perhaps you could clarify what you were meaning by the use of the word in the middle of a sentence about irrationality.

Perhaps you might just read my post a bit more carefully.

You said,
'I imagine it's possible with someone with schizophrenia to apply their reason to their problems, and it would make sense to them, one step leading logically to the next, but it's based on irrationality, so it could no longer be called reason.'

From my understanding, even though you say that a person 'with schizophrenia' can use reason you are suggesting it is still based on irrationality. Actually, I think that all human beings have some contradictions between reason and lack of it, so schizophrenia has no bearing on the matter and did not need to be mentioned at all.

so schizophrenia has no bearing on the matter and did not need to be mentioned at all. — Jack Cummins

So even though you said you misinterpreted me you’re back to correcting me. You’ll have to make up your mind.

The reason why I seem to waver in between an apparent ambiguity over whether I am misinterpreted you or not, is because I don't really follow the logic of your sentence. Whether or not that is your failure or mine, I am still puzzled about the term schizophrenia in the sentence. The reason I am getting a bit heated over the matter is because I have worked with people diagnosed with this mental health problem and see it as a sensitive issue.

The reason I am getting a bit heated over the matter is because I have worked with people diagnosed with this mental health problem and see it as a sensitive issue. — Jack Cummins

You probably do see it as a sensitive issue. Who doesn’t? But what does that have to do with my post?

I have already made my point, and it is ridiculous for us to keep discussing it endlessly.

So, setting the word you used aside, and focusing back on how we all go about our individual searching for truth, do you not think that it is fair to say that we all have splits in reason and lack of it?

do you not think that it is fair to say that we all have splits in reason and lack of it? — Jack Cummins

Obviously otherwise you wouldn’t have posted those comments about schizophrenia and my thoughts.

We can see historically and without question that in the US there has been little interest in philosophy except for a handful of elite youths who could go to college. — Athena

Can you clarify who these people might be?

Thanks for the link on logotherapy. It sounds an interesting form of therapy.

The one area of therapy where there are jobs is cognitive behavioral therapy. It is also a form of therapy which is about enabling people to think more clearly by examining the assumptions behind their beliefs. However, from what I have seen in practice it seemed to go more in the behaviourist direction and less in the cognitive one, which I found a bit disappointing.

If someone believed in the existence of God then they had a Truth to their life. Otherwise why would you believe it? If and when someone begins to doubt the existence of God and eventually repudiates that existence with what do they replace that Truth they had? — Brett

Wouldn't there necessarily be a reason for the person to doubt and then reject "God"? Wouldn't this reason be the person's new Truth? However, the person might just become extremely doubtful and skeptical of Truth altogether. Some people argue that this type of doubt constitutes the person's new Truth, "there is no Truth". But I do not see it that way. I think it's a very naive way of viewing this situation. In reality, to have faith in Truth, and to be skeptical are two very distinct attitudes, and one cannot be reduced to a form of the other.

Therefore I would describe your example as a change in attitude, one type of attitude is replaced with another. The change might go the opposite way as well. Also, I firmly believe that a person cannot go directly from having faith in one Truth, to having faith in an incompatible Truth without going through a transition period of skepticism, having no faith. If this is true, it means that we must firmly reject one faith, by switching to an attitude of skepticism, before we are capable of accepting a new faith.

This I think, is the reason why many arguments in this forum are fruitless. Instead of sowing the seed of skepticism in the mind of a person with an opposing faith, whereby the person would be induced to doubt what one currently believes, most posters in this forum simply try to convince others that their view is the correct one. Arguing one's own perspective is ineffective toward changing the attitude of another. What is required is to change the person's attitude, to instill doubt, releasing the person from the binds of certitude toward what one believes. This is to produce an open mind on the subject.