...there was a basic problematic built into existence that gave rise to the worshipping and the rest.
— Astrophel
Yup. Ignorance of causality. — creativesoul
As in not knowing, say, disease to be caused by microbiology. — Astrophel
Not so much about causality itself, but of what causes what. — Astrophel
On the other hand, the question remains, what is there that is IN the causal matrix of the world? — Astrophel
All one can witness is movement, change, and one can quantify these in endless ways... — Astrophel
...the world as such is simply given. — Astrophel
...here we find the mystery of value and ethics. This is what is behind all those stories. — Astrophel
I don't see that the disposition to help people in need, to pursue beauty and truth, to eat drink and be merry, to sleep well at night can be put on a scale at all, at least not on any meaningful scale.I haven't said that everyday mundane reality is low, in fact I have explicitly said that it is our disposition towards things which could be higher or lower. — Janus
You are setting up a false opposition here. It is not merely natural for us, it is right. Admittedly, we need to reconcile our love of our own with more universal, and perhaps less immediate values, and the specific values can compete with the universal ones. But that doesn't mean that one is "higher" than the other. "Higher" and "lower" are metaphors and the metaphors should be very cautiously interpreted.Right, so to extend the above line of thought, it is natural for us to value our species, our own families and friends, ourselves, above all else. But this is something we are called upon to overcome, at least intellectually if not "viscerally" in the name of our human ideals of justice, freedom, beauty, love and truth. — Janus
The context shows that I was summarizing @Janus view:-Usually, we do not 'know' our values in any meaningful sense. It would be helpful to elaborate what you mean here. It seems prima facie absurd. — AmadeusD
Hwowever, I agree that it was poorly expressed.You seem to be trying to say that our values cannot be described in the way that facts can and hence are not true or false and cannot be known, and yet we know them and they are true. — Ludwig V
But that is also poorly expressed, in my view. A state of affairs is truth-apt and values may involve the intellect, but not in the way that science, for example, does. A value is more like an imperative than a statement, in that it relates to action in a way that a state of affairs does not. A value can be the major premiss of a practical syllogism; a state of affairs an only be a minor premiss in such a syllogism.Values cannot be truth-apt. They are intellectual states of affairs. — AmadeusD
One explanation for the fact that he seems to have dropped this topic in his later writing is that he realized that it was, shall we say, the result of a very limited view of language, which he escaped from when he recognized that the meaning of language is in its use, not in "propositions" - which are separated by definition from action, at least in Frege's talk of "entertaining" a proposition.This might explain why it's so silly... — AmadeusD
No, no, no. An imperative is not true or false, but is valid or not, obeyed or not. Values are more like imperatives than truths. They are what we pursue. We can pursue truth (which is why it is also a value), but we also pursue other values, and needs (which are not necessarily the same kind of thing).We all know them, by virtue of being human, but their truth cannot be demonstrated in any determinable way as the truth of the fact of the world of the senses can. — Janus
I don't see that the disposition to help people in need, to pursue beauty and truth, to eat drink and be merry, to sleep well at night can be put on a scale at all, at least not on any meaningful scale. — Ludwig V
You are setting up a false opposition here. It is not merely natural for us, it is right. Admittedly, we need to reconcile our love of our own with more universal, and perhaps less immediate values, and the specific values can compete with the universal ones. But that doesn't mean that one is "higher" than the other. "Higher" and "lower" are metaphors and the metaphors should be very cautiously interpreted. — Ludwig V
We all know them, by virtue of being human, but their truth cannot be demonstrated in any determinable way as the truth of the fact of the world of the senses can.
— Janus
No, no, no. An imperative is not true or false, but is valid or not, obeyed or not. Values are more like imperatives than truths. They are what we pursue. We can pursue truth (which is why it is also a value), but we also pursue other values, and needs (which are not necessarily the same kind of thing). — Ludwig V
But let's not pretend that it is a simple matter to establish truth and a hopeless enterprise to establish a value; that far too simple a model to be helpful. — Ludwig V
A state of affairs is truth-apt — Ludwig V
A value is more like an imperative than a statement, in that it relates to action in a way that a state of affairs does not. A value can be the major premiss of a practical syllogism; a state of affairs an only be a minor premiss in such a syllogism. — Ludwig V
'A' is a contradiction of orthodoxy which denies the heretical Gnostic principle that God can be known. So, it should be "I am convinced there is a God".
'B' is, most moderately, "I find no reason to believe in God, so I lack such a belief."
'C' is about right, it being a denial of Gnosticism, which paradoxically orthodoxy also is, rendering it in line with agnosticism, the difference being that the believer has faith in the existence of God, whereas the agnostic finds no reason to have such a faith, nor any reason to have faith in God's non-existence.
'D' is not I know there is not a God", but "I am against the very idea" (for whatever reasons, rational, moral, etc.) — Janus
A. I believe in a God.
B. I do not believe in a God.
C. I do not know whether or not there is a God.
D. I claim that 'theism is not true, therefore theistic deities are fictions, and therefore theistic religions are immoral'.
ABC are standard definitions and D is nonstandard (which I prefer). — 180 Proof
There are four words we can use to adequately, discreetly and clearly delineate the four positions of relevance:
A. Theism=I know there's a God;
B. Atheism = I do not know whether there's a God;
C. Agnosticism = I cannot know whether there is a God; and
D. Anti-Theism = I know there is not a God. — AmadeusD
There are four words we can use to adequately, discreetly and clearly delineate the four positions of relevance:
A. Theism=I know there's a God;
B. Atheism = I do not know whether there's a God;
C. Agnosticism = I cannot know whether there is a God; and
D. Anti-Theism = I know there is not a God. — AmadeusD
B. Atheism = I do not know whether there's a God; — AmadeusD
Isn't the salient part of atheism's position, I don't believe in a god? It is for me. — Tom Storm
Well, I can see that there's a difference, but let's not get picky about language. Values are related to action in a way that facts are not. That's the important difference.Firstly, I am not thinking in terms of imperatives, but in terms of concern or care; our human capacity to care about justice, beauty, freedom, truth, creativity, love and so on. I see these concerns as being truths about the human condition, about being human. Those who care nothing for such things are considered to be not as fully human, and I think rightly so. — Janus
"States of people's minds" suggests that you are either a relativist or a subjectivist. Or have I misunderstood? I do agree, however, that the binary classification between objective and subjective is most unhelpful when applied to ethics.This is why the moral debate between 'objective' and 'subjective' morals is so utterly ridiculous and intractable. They aren't either, independently: They are. together, states of people's minds. — AmadeusD
B. Atheism = I do not know whether there's a God; — AmadeusD
(sc. B) Isn't the salient part of atheism's position, I don't believe in a god? It is for me. — Tom Storm
There is something of a battle going on at the moment between belief and knowledge as the appropriate category. The (mistaken) idea that the difference between belief and knowledge means that saying one believes in God implies some sort of uncertainty, so people who strongly believe in God want to claim to know, while people who don't believe in God (or don't believe that belief in God can be rationally justified) cannot possibly concede that. It's very confusing.And by the same token isn't a theist someone who believes there is a god? I have a number of theist friends, including priests and rabbis, who would actually count as agnostic theists. They would never say that they know god exists. They would say they believe and have faith. — Tom Storm
It's very confusing. — Ludwig V
Yes, that's exactly his argument. What is not clear is whether he thought of that as debunking metaphysics or legitimizing it (in some form)? (Throwing away the ladder once one has climbed up it.) I can't see that he might have intended to allow (or would have allowed), if he had known about it) a project like Husserl's or Heidegger's - both of whom abjured metaphysics (as traditionally understood.) — Ludwig V
I'm all for giving a central place in philosophy to human life. But classifying that as metaphysics is a bit of a stretch don't you think? — Ludwig V
It certainly would. Ethics as we know it would not exist. It would reduce to determinism. — Ludwig V
That depends on what you mean by "grounded". You seem to be attributing some sort of coercive force to Being and that is the nightmare of a world without ethics or even value. — Ludwig V
To be more considerate, given the historical timeframe of the supernatural stories, and the sheer explosion of very complex human thought and belief emerging from written language, it makes complete and perfect sense that such people used language in the ways they did to come up with such explanations for 'why' things were/are the way they were, and/or 'will be'. — creativesoul
I do not understand how that counts as being 'on the other hand'. Looks like a different way to say "what causes what", both of which refer to causality, which is what I started with. Occam's razor applies. — creativesoul
Presupposes a giver. Occam's razor applies. — creativesoul
A mystery is behind the stories? Seems like those stories spell it all out fairly clearly. So, I see no mystery to speak of. The stories are mistaken, but clear enough to be clearly mistaken.
Value and ethics are embedded within stories. They grow with stories. They change with stories. So, to say that values and ethics are 'behind' the religious stories, as if they are somehow the basis underlying/grounding of all those stories seems suspect, eh? Cleary not all. Some. Sure. — creativesoul
That's just about where I'm at. That's why I'm taking an interest in this thread, but not adopting a position. I do have various theories, but none of them would be of any interest to a believer. For a start, I'm not merely interested in monotheism. Polytheism (which historically, I think preceded monotheism and derives from it.) is pretty clearly a sort of personification of important elements of ordinary life. "God" in modern religions seems to be a keystone for a way of life and a system of values, rather than an empirical reality. There's also the idea that religion is part of the system of social control that became necessary when cities and agriculture developed. Finally, there are those self-certifying experiences that people have.When I say I don't believe in god, I also hold that I don't have a robust idea what the idea of god/s even means. It's pretty hard to believe in something which seems incoherent or unintelligible. But not understanding - and therefore not believing - can not be held as knowledge (I would have thought). — Tom Storm
I wasn't aware of Jordan Peterson's theory. It seems like a version of Aristotle's theory of the Supreme Good.There are many potential versions of god - from the magic space wizard (so beloved by Trump supporters), to the highest value in the hierarchy of values, as per Jordan Peterson. — Tom Storm
I would agree with that. There's a wide range of different views in circulation. Far too many to classify into just four propositions - unless you think that God is an empirical hypothesis. It's curious, though, that there seem to be both theists and atheists who prefer that approach, no doubt in the belief that favours their case.Wouldn't it be the case that to be an atheist or a theist varies radically according to the kinds of god you are or are not believing in, which must surely also impact upon the belief knowledge/question? — Tom Storm
Well, I can see that there's a difference, but let's not get picky about language. Values are related to action in a way that facts are not. That's the important difference. — Ludwig V
I'm aware that many people like to see ethical values as rooted in the human condition living in the world. I'm very sympathetic.
However, we do dehumanize people who behave very badly - and it is not difficult to find people doing things that pass my (and, I hope, your) understanding. However, I think this is a mistake. The people who set up a huge administrative and industrial system to eradicate people of certain kinds from their society (to give just one hackneyed example) are human beings. We are capable of heroism and horror. We should not pretend otherwise even though the recognition is not comfortable.
And there's the problem. If values are rooted in the human condition, how come people behave like that? — Ludwig V
Of course. But concern, love, intention and judgement are all realized in actions.Values are related to action, but they are also related to concern, love, intention and judgement. — Janus
If you had said that living in that way was a better form of life, I would entirely agree with you.For me ethical values are rooted in caring about how we are to live. My earlier talk in terms of higher and lower was meant to show that I think living with care, concern and love for others and for the whole environment, the whole Earth, is a higher form of life than living without such care. — Janus
I'm not sure why I express my thought in that way. I was referring to the holocaust in WW2. Of course it is right to restrain people sometimes. The problems arise when you think that some people are not really people.I am not sure what you mean by "eradicating people of certain kinds" so I can't comment on that other than to say that I think certain kinds of people certainly need to be restrained; namely those who possess little or no self-restraint or even self-awareness. — Janus
Even "less than fully human" is problematic. There is a concept of "human rights", which aims to establish minimal norms for the treatment of all human beings. Once you have branded a group of people as "less than fully human", you have licensed excluding them from those rights. As so often, a lofty and entirely praiseworthy enterprise is undermined by the exclusion of our enemies. This issue underpinned the battles about the rights of the "common man", women, slaves, and so on.I don't agree with dehumanizing people in the extreme, but I do think it is fair to see people who have no such care as being less than fully human. By human I mean something like "able to transcend being ruled by mere self-interest and the passions of the moment, able to be aware of and care about one's effect on other beings, both human and animal and even plant". — Janus
In a way, there is nothing wrong with that. Limiting one's scope to narrow self-interest is certainly a bad thing. But it is right to look after one's own interests. I don't see that it is a "lower" value than helping other people to look after theirs. What is wrong is not looking after and helping others as well.By human I mean something like "able to transcend being ruled by mere self-interest and the passions of the moment, able to be aware of and care about one's effect on other beings, both human and animal and even plant". — Janus
Of course. But concern, love, intention and judgement are all realized in actions. — Ludwig V
If you had said that living in that way was a better form of life, I would entirely agree with you. — Ludwig V
The problems arise when you think that some people are not really people. — Ludwig V
There is a concept of "human rights", which aims to establish minimal norms for the treatment of all human beings. — Ludwig V
But it is right to look after one's own interests. I don't see that it is a "lower" value than helping other people to look after theirs. What is wrong is not looking after and helping others as well.
You are forgetting that it is quite easy to do terrible things in pursuit of a selfless ideology - indeed, I sometimes think that a set of values is often the basis for worse things than self-interest - like tyranny, torture and genocide. — Ludwig V
To be more considerate, given the historical timeframe of the supernatural stories, and the sheer explosion of very complex human thought and belief emerging from written language, it makes complete and perfect sense that such people used language in the ways they did to come up with such explanations for 'why' things were/are the way they were, and/or 'will be'.
— creativesoul
The Op asks, what is behind "such explanations"? — Astrophel
"Behind" here is, of course, not a determinative matter.
Philosophy wants to know what things are at the most basic level of inquiry, and the narrative account is the first thing to go.
What does it mean to be "thrown" into a world...
...being thrown into disease, and countless miseries, as well as the joys, blisses, and the countless delights? Ethics does not simply deal with such things; it IS these things...
I do not understand how that counts as being 'on the other hand'. Looks like a different way to say "what causes what", both of which refer to causality, which is what I started with. Occam's razor applies.
— creativesoul
Right. What is IN the causal matrix of the world is not causality itself, but the world that is being observed. — Astrophel
Givenness refers to "being thrown" into a world that is foundationally indeterminate. How is it foundationally indeterminate takes one to the issue of language. Language deals with the world, but does not speak its presence, so to speak. Long and windy issue. — Astrophel
Value and ethics are embedded within stories. They grow with stories. They change with stories. So, to say that values and ethics are 'behind' the religious stories, as if they are somehow the basis underlying/grounding of all those stories seems suspect, eh? Cleary not all. Some. Sure.
— creativesoul
It is not the story itself, but what gave rise to the story. Jump to the chase: Religion is all about our being thrown into a world to suffer and die. — Astrophel
Surely you don't mean that love or concern may never shows themselves in any actions at all? The moral worth of that is, let us say, debatable.Sure, they can be realized in actions, but they are not necessarily. — Janus
There's that higher/lower metaphor again. But I can't see just what you mean without examples.I think there are higher and lower states of consciousness. — Janus
Those laws have been developed from what many people think are moral imperatives. Think of Kant's categorical imperative.I'm not advocating removing the anyone's rights. That would be in the domain of legal policy and that is not what I am addressing. — Janus
I'll just substitute "worse" for "lower". OK? Certainly most selfish people are hypocritical at some level, since their personal interests depend on mutual recognition of other people. My property is my own, but only because other people have the same rights as I do.what I've been saying is that one who is concerned only with their own interests is morally lower than one who is concerned with their own interests and the interests of others. — Janus
What "behind" means to you, good sir, determines what you mean to say, what you mean by what you say, as well as what I take you to mean after such usage had begun. — creativesoul
The assertion "Philosophy wants to know what things are at the most basic level of inquiry" is attributing wants to things that are incapable of forming/having them. I'd charge anthropomorphism; however, humans are not the only creatures capable of wanting things. — creativesoul
Philosophy is something that is practiced. Practices are not the sort of things that 'want to know' anything. Practitioners are.
The quote above is self-defeating. It cannot be put into practice. What would 'the most basic level of inquiry' even look like in complete absence of narrative account. I mean, honoring the suggestion neglects the fact that it quite simply cannot be done. There goes the only means/method available to us for seeking such knowledge. — creativesoul
can think of a few different sensible uses of that term. It may indicate situations when/where one's spatiotemporal location is drastically changed as a result of being hurtled through the air, against their will/choosing/wishes. It may refer to all the different subjective particular circumstances during the adoption of one's initial/first worldview. It may refer to the fact that no one chooses the socioeconomic circumstances they are born into. — creativesoul
Yup. Thousands upon thousands of pages. The introduction story in On The Way To Language is some of Heiddy's best work. Too bad he wasn't around enough individual's to grasp the full meaning underlying "that which goes unspoken". He was thrown into a different world. — creativesoul
If you're attempting to equate ethics with "being thrown into disease, and countless miseries, as well as the joys, blisses, and the countless delights" then I'll have to walk. That makes no sense whatsoever. — creativesoul
Jump over the burden much? — creativesoul
Surely you don't mean that love or concern may never shows themselves in any actions at all? The moral worth of that is, let us say, debatable. — Ludwig V
There's that higher/lower metaphor again. But I can't see just what you mean without examples. — Ludwig V
Those laws have been developed from what many people think are moral imperatives. Think of Kant's categorical imperative — Ludwig V
I'll just substitute "worse" for "lower". OK? Certainly most selfish people are hypocritical at some level, since their personal interests depend on mutual recognition of other people. My property is my own, but only because other people have the same rights as I do. — Ludwig V
God has to be reduced to its essential meaning before one can talk about why one should believe in God. — Constance
Religion is about metaphysics... — Astrophel
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.