You're right in that the primary motivation seems to be truth rather than motivation. However, the fact is so many philosophical issues haven't been resolved as such i.e. truth-value of propositions are unknown. In such cases belief is a matter of preference is it not?

Also, there are so many points of view given any situation, each pulling us in different directions which usually have competing emotional effects (some are sad, others pleasant and still others neutral). Given so isn't it preference then that ultimately has the upper hand in our decisions on whether to believe a particular philosophy or not? — TheMadFool

It is an interesting issue. But does the history of philosophy and its issues unfold before people in the manner you describe? Are people not more likely to be "drawn" to issues from a particular area of philosophy or "drawn" to the approach of a particular school or "drawn" to the writings of a particular philosopher long before they acquire any deep and broad across the board understanding of philosophy and its issues?

And if that is the case, do we choose what we are "drawn" to? How would preference play any significant role except in the rare cases where people are strongly drawn in more than one direction? But even then, the draws from different directions would have to be relatively equal or people would simply go the direction they are more strongly drawn.

Perhaps we overestimate the role that choice, preference and free will play in our lives. In our average everydayness, we spend very little (if any) time contemplating directions of our movement? We simply move forward in the direction we are drawn and only contemplate (briefly) when we feel the pull from a different direction.

Of course, some would likely attempt to confuse the issue by trying to make some sort of cause and effect connection between our preferences and the directions we are drawn and thereby render trivial all decisions. I suspect there must be a meaningful difference between:

1. Philosophy is ultimately about our preference; and
2. Philosophy is ultimately about that to which we are drawn.

Yes, the truth has been spoken. — Posty McPostface

You rock!!

What is? I'm afraid I'm confused myself. — Posty McPostface

The objective subjective trap is something I have noticed occurring for quite some time now. People talk about being objective or subjective; but, what does that even mean? — Posty McPostface

I was asking unenlightened whether attaching the word subjective to an agreed upon truth created unnecessary confusion. It opens the objective-subjective trap and the next thing you know people are talking about the actually true and the true that is sort of less than actually true. ITS A TRAP

And the trap is a gibberish machine.

You are saying that there is no such thing as the Conscious Red experience. — SteveKlinko

if you are serious about the language problem, then ask yourself:

what is the difference between:

1. a conscious experience of Red; and
2. an experience of red.

Unnecessary words cause confusion.

Not enough information. It depends--a talented male prostitute or a dull fellow? Good looking or should have a bag over his head? What -- you want more or fewer? Should it be legal or not? What's your angle? — Bitter Crank

That is funny.

Especially new people new to the process should keep it short and sweet. For some people, the more you, the more they have for beating you over the head. There is some meanness out there.

If you start a topic on the hangover philosophy — Posty McPostface

How about "the rock I am thinking about actually is, therefore I am"

I am puzzled how the Cartesians ended up convincing us that the rock (object in the external world) is actually real while grudgingly granting some sort of diminished realness to the (internal) experiences in my head. After all, Descartes was emphatic that those sort of real things inside my head are the only real things the existence of which are beyond doubt. How did they turn that inside out?

:smile:

No, you have the chicken before the egg. T/F answers are what the world is made up of and math is a reflection of that. — TogetherTurtle

I am more of a cart before the horse guy.

The reading group does intrigue me however. If I am wrong, I would like to know. My view is either true or false after all. I just got my paycheck so if I have to buy the book I could I suppose — TogetherTurtle

There are two widely accepted translations. I presume one of them will be used. Both are available for download free of charge.

Will you be wrong? Yes and no and I am sincere in saying that. Nothing you have said is incompatible with Heidegger. But if you are serious, you will walk away with a much deeper and broader understanding of "world", though not inconsistent with the one you expressed. But once you grasp his understanding of "world" you will laugh to yourself every time you hear the term used in a colloquial manner. And the same with T/F. Heidegger would not quibble with your understanding. But he will sure as hell deepen it.

Heidegger was educated as a mathematician and a physicist.

are you suggesting that difference is a perceiver dependent assignment used to render intelligible to the perceiver non-perceiver dependent boundaries?

are you suggesting that difference depends on the perceiver while the boundaries that enable to the perceiver to assign a difference does not?

I agree with you regarding the being of the absence of the cup in a fashion. If there is a cup (an entity), then its presence or absence is a modal sate of its being. And the modal state of the being of an entity can affect the totality of involvements of a being in the world (in this case, perhaps a person who expected to use the cup and it was the only cup they had so they have to go to work without their coffee and that put them into a mood that affected their entire day). And in a cause and effect world, all causes are reducible to entities. Therefore, the absence of the cup is a causal entity in shaping the day of the person who expected the presence of the cup. And that is my understanding of Heideggerian ontology.

Before talking about whether God exists, one must define what God is? — Corvus

Why?

I am confident of the existence of entities (though I do not think of God as an entity) on Jupiter and you may rest assured I cannot define them.

As many have said, it's critical to define what is meant by "God." I could define "God" as the laptop I'm using right now and prove to myself that "God" exists. — Michael Cunningham

As true as that may be, there is no real issue with that. If you wanted to define your laptop as God and then prove God existed, I am confident many (if not most) would shy away from engaging with you on the issues.

I am inclined to shy away from believers who feel the need to share their definition (of arguably the indefinable) while I am inclined to engage with believers who feel no such need.

You argument above has an implied premise that if there was a compensating good, we would see it, and recognize it as such. That may not be true. — Rank Amateur

Excellent point. I never heard anyone say they took the bad things in life for granted until they were gone. I have a roof over my head, I have food in my cupboard, I have gas in my car, and all I have to complain about is others may not be as fortunate and the weather was not so good today.

A bold discussion topic. Certainly one of the most interesting topics. I have been engaged in it most of my life. But when people begin talking about "proving" the existence/non-existence of God, I move on until the silliness passes. However, one of the issues that really does get me arguing is the oft unstated and mistaken presumption that reason and/or science are on the side of the non-believer. Reason and/or science are neutral on the issue.

I want to encourage you to participate in the forum, so please don't take what I say here as a "get lost" response.

a) Your post is too long and too diffuse.
b) Focus on a specific point in your opening post.
c) Take a position, offer an argument in favor of your position, then wait for a response.

If your main point is "without self-discipline you’re just a wild dog running around chasing food and sex" then start with that. Tell us why you think being self-disciplined is better than being a wild dog. Why does it matter? — Bitter Crank

Indeed:

The length was the first thing I thought of. And generally for contemporary reasons. This is the facebook age. Until and, more likely when, you fall into a particular niche and know who the regulars are, make your claim and argue for it in five sentences or less.

I was just surprised that you were surprised by the kinds of comments you were talking about. — Wayfarer

Me too.

Though I think it angered me more than surprised me.

The extreme sensitivity of the subject matter, someone putting themselves out there with a personal and obviously non-empirical comment, and the one word response "proof!"

Maybe it was just a perfect storm.

Maybe I was hoping this was a better neighborhood.

And it probably is.

This is interesting stuff.

That's the point I made, creating something produces impossibilities, not possibilities. It eliminates the possibilities which the creation of that thing excludes. — Metaphysician Undercover

why wouldn't it do both? Your claim suggests that ultimately we will run out of possibilities. Unless of course there are an infinite number of possibilities. And if there are an infinite number of possibilities, then new possibilities has no effect on the number of possibilities.

And are not some foreclosed possibilities necessarily less attractive possibilities anyways? If not, then would they be foreclosed. And are not the new possibilities more likely to be a higher level possibilities than those that have been foreclosed? And even if the number of arguably higher level possibilities is fewer than the number of foreclosed lower level possibilities, then do we not have a quality/quantity distinction in which we are still arguably better off with the fewer?

And what about time in addition to probability? If the newly created or now emerged existing possibilities not only more probably, but if they are going to happen, then are now more likely to happen sooner than later?

This is some really great stuff.

How much time have you spent on Internet forums? — Wayfarer

I have been on internet forums as long as there have been internet forums. And I have been in philosophy discussion groups since my days as a philosophy undergrad and that was before there were internet forums.

Here is the distinction I make:

If my proposition is not an empirical proposition, then do not demand empirical proof. Simply put, it makes no sense to demand proof that you know cannot be provided.

As for constitutes other kinds of proof, I do not care. And I do not care because they are gibberish and can all be boiled down to whether you have made a good argument.

If someone makes a good argument that I disagree with and I feel entitled to respond, I will make a counter argument and hopefully it will be good.

But demanding empirical proof in support of a non-empirical claim while you are heading out the door is the philosophical equivalent of flipping someone off because they do share your viewpoint. It is a red herring.

This ain't facebook.

Phantom limb pain is real pain in a phantom limb. There are subjective truths. — unenlightened

You keep begging the question.

How is your proposition regarding truth being an attribute of the assertion advanced in any way by this subjective/objective distinction?

It seems to me that this distinction is (as always) just getting in the way and muddying up the waters.

And is that not a central claim of the original post?

Is this arguably unnecessary and continually introduced distinction proof positive that Posty McPostface is correct, at least in this instance?

Within the context of philosophical discussion groups, I have never seen a demand for empirical "proof" from any one regarding a philosophical proposition with which they agree. Not. One. Time.

So, the issue is about fulfilling criteria? — Posty McPostface

No. The issue is the criteria to be applied, if any, given the nature of the premise. I have little patience for people who demand their music taste like pizza.

no. Though I don't disagree with that.

I do not disagree. But certainly the nature of the proposition should indicate to most whether a demand for empirical "proof" is appropriate. And scientific propositions and philosophical propositions are not the same. I go out of my way to avoid advancing philosophical propositions amenable to empirical proof. I leave those to science. That is their thing and they are good at it. I do not apply to music the criteria I use for assessing the quality of pizza.

I disagree.

perhaps a good name would be "What do you take for your Cartesian hangover?" The unenlightened one and you have senses of humor, give me some ideas for names. Humor draws them in. Of course, any one who goes by the handle Posty McPostface already knows that. :-)

that which actually is — Pattern-chaser

And in what way is that which actually is different from that which is?

And what about that which really is?

I can't believe you walked right in to that one.

Or are you messing with our heads?

:smile:

I was equating each school of philosophy with a single tool, — Pattern-chaser

I know. I extended your metaphor.

Metaphor's invite that.

Your examples prove my point. There is very little in the major fields of philosophy that are amenable in any significant way to resolution by empirical evidence.

Demanding proof of reliability of the senses one relies upon is a self revealing absurdity.

How do these people get to work in the morning?

I d

Hmm, why is that? — Posty McPostface

I try and avoid the internal/external baggage that comes with subjective/objective.

It is like taking aspirin for my Cartesian hangover.

It is better than hair of the dog.

Well who is in a position to make the call for the pain in an amputated leg? We all agree that the amputee does not have the leg any more than you or I have it. What position counts as a position? — unenlightened

I do not know who it is but I know it is not me.

If there is a person in a position to make a final determination of true/false, calling the decision subjective/objective does not make it any less true/false.

Just saying.

if I were a mechanic, I suspect the contents of my toolbox would be significantly different than the contents of a carpenter's tool box. And though I might use a carpenter's tool once in a while, I am not expend resources to acquire a complete set of carpenter's tools.

I use philosophy in pursuit of an ever deepening understanding of the nature of being. My philosophy tool box is going to be full of tools that best enable that pursuit. And if most of those tools come from a particular school of philosophy (a particular hardware store? a particular hardware brand? from a particular hardware department?), then those are the tools that are going to be in my tool box.

And I am not young. And I have acquired and discarded various tools over many years. And most of the tools now in my tool box are from a particular school of philosophy. But I did not acquire them because I "subscribed" to that school of philosophy. I acquired them because they facilitate my philosophical pursuit..

I enjoyed reading this thread.

Now that you mention it, maybe I should. . . . Gotta run!

I agree. But it is not just that "evidence" may be terminologically better than "proof", it is also the "demand"ing nature of the response.

The OP was prompted by a discussion I was following about "what happens after you die." Someone commented to the effect "we do not know if the soul is a material thing. it could be that it lives on after the body dies."

The comment was met with the one word demand "proof!"

I was struck by the rudeness of the response in light of the personal and intimate nature of the comment.

Not only was the response rude, the person making the demand knew there would be no proof forthcoming.

It is anti-philosophical.

Why would anyone do that?

it seems to me that your subject/object distinction could just as well be handled by saying some people are simply not in a position to make the true/false call. If you assert your back is sore, I am in no position to make a true/false assessment of your assertion. If you say your back is sore and you then start doing cartwheels, I am in a position to see that the entity toward which the assertion is directed is not showing itself as asserted.

What entity is this assertion directed towards? I need to see if it is as asserted, before assenting to it. — unenlightened

I use the word entity rather than object.

Stick around a while and you will see why.

An assertion is true if the entity (object) toward which the assertion is directed shows itself as it is asserted.

The assertion that the car (entity, object) is blue is true if the car shows itself to be blue.

So, I'm saying, of those situations you are taking issue with, many fall into one of two camps, both of which can actually be defended. — Pseudonym

very few fall into the camp of amenable to empirical "proof."

And none of mine do.

I leave to science the empirically provable.

That is their thing and they are good at.

You have entreated us to "not demand proof" — Pseudonym

my choosing the word "demand" was no accident.

it is nonsensical to expect me to tell you what I am saying when you are continually telling me what I am saying.