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?

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

Don't overthink it. The question is, do you hold your sense of understanding and truth to be more important than someone else's? And your answer is... ?

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

The nature of your understanding, your existence, the thing-in-itself.

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?

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

Subjective truth: a truth that, primarily, matters to the individual. Does that help?

So back to your statement. Does your statement "The difference lies in what I (can) make of it.
— tim wood " mean that subjective truth is more important to you?

don't know about "such an" experience. And I have noted that experience and understanding are not the same thing. By abstraction, I mean that on one side, understanding is a thing-in-itself, on the other, about something that it itself is not. In this latter sense an abstraction. "Metaphysical phenomenon" I take to be incoherent word-salad - unless you can educate. — tim wood

Interesting, so it seems as thought you don't really understand how you come to perceive understanding itself. Or said in another way, how experiences effect your understanding. I'm left to the conclusion that you really don't understand how in cognition, and your own abilities to reason, can come about.

If that is somewhat accurate, then how can you speak to the creation of yours and my existence (much less the concept of a God's existence)?

Alternatively, you used the term 'thing-in-itself', is that Kantian metaphysics I wonder :snicker:

Do tell!

Understanding I take to be a species of translation. Experience can inform the accuracy of the translation, and inasmuch as understanding is both an itself and an abstraction, it seems to me the granularity of the experience can add - data, if you will - to understanding. — tim wood

Nice. Is having such an experience some sort of subjective understanding ? And what do you mean by abstraction, is that like metaphysical phenomena?

This question in this context is both incoherent and abusive. Get back on the path. — tim wood

Okay, you said :

and the uses to which I put that understanding.
— tim wood — 3017amen

So I'm getting confused, is your own understanding part of a subjective truth?

Like I have certain interests and concerns (I value my friendships, I enjoy Japanese literature, and I have certain political views about society) What difference would be done to that if someone or something has an opinion on what I should do with my life, unless I was blackmailed into it. It's like as if someone's parents told their kids what to be when they grow up, why should you care about what they say? — Saphsin

To stay on theme, are you suggesting that the kids have their own truth and own needs? Also, what does having " value" have any thing to do with our existence?

Having experiences is just having experiences - understanding something different. Indeed, practice is that people who have had experiences often go to people who have not had those experiences in an effort to try to understand them. And this just the words. We'll get further faster and more directly if you get to the substance. — tim wood

Great. Let's look at how you yourself obtain your own understanding then.

How does your experiences effect your understanding about something?

You, not me. Clearly and obviously it all depends on lots of things, here undetermined. — tim wood

I'm not following you Tim. Are you now saying that my understanding is more important than yours?

Or in the alternative, you must be thinking that someone else's truth and/or understanding is just as important to them, as it is likewise to you. So help me out, which is it? Can both be true?
— 3017amen
Meaningless question, or at least unanswerable, until the terms are nailed down on all corners. And, sometimes. — tim wood

Really? Whose understanding is more important, yours or mine?

By application and process. — tim wood

Great. We are making progress, I think.

So, by your 'application and process' does that translate into experience? And would that suggest someone who has had a subjective religious experience has a deeper understanding than one who has not had such experience?

And if the answer to that question is 'yes', then is that primarily a subjective experience or an objective experience?

One reason that is such a critical question is because you stated that it is important for you yourself, to have understanding. That implies you feel that your own truth and understanding, is indeed more important than someone else's.

Or in the alternative, you must be thinking that someone else's truth and/or understanding is just as important to them, as it is likewise to you. So help me out, which is it? Can both be true?

What do you mean by more important? If you're the building inspector for a town and I'm some clown who thinks he can plumb and do the electrical work in his own home himself - not actually knowing code or even how - then yes, your understanding is more important than mine. Is that what you meant? — tim wood

Not really, but let's use your logic here. If the inspector's understanding is more important than yours and mine, how do you get to have better understanding?

Okay let's try again. You said:

Yes, and the uses to which I put that understanding.
— tim wood

" Great. And so are you suggesting that your understanding takes primacy over someone else's understanding? "

In other words Tim, are you suggesting that your own understanding is more important than someone else's understanding?

Yes, and the uses to which I put that understanding. — tim wood

Great. And so are you suggesting that your understanding takes primacy over someone else's understanding?

The difference lies in what I (can) make of it. — tim wood

Okay, then let's break it down and start over to see how you use logic here in this context.. What do you mean when you say:

"The difference lies in what I (can) make of it."

What does "what I can make of it" mean? Does it mean, how you come to understand something?

The difference lies in what I (can) make of it. — tim wood

You are basically saying the difference between your lack of ability to use reason in explaining your own existence only matters to you yourself.

And so you must be subordinating Objectivity in favor of Subjectivity. And your answer is... ?

Define your terms, as it sits I have no idea what you mean. — tim wood

Subjective truth v. objective truth. And your answer... ?

Subordination to what? — tim wood

Subordination to subjectivity. And your answer... ?

The difference lies in what I (can) make of it. — tim wood

Interesting. Are you suggesting a subordination of objective reason? That's a rather important question here, no?

Or have you already told us it's unreason. — tim wood

Tim!

Think of it this way, your own existence is "unreasoned". So what's the difference?

There is lived experience, events and agency involved. As such a theist is engaged in real/lived events, things inaccessible to the intellect, or intellectual analysis, because this analysis is limited, as the intellect is limited. — Punshhh

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.".

As such, in part, what you are talking about is ineffable experiences and/or phenomena. That phenomena extends into existential and metaphysical phenomena. For example, the feelings of Love, ecstasy, joy, peace, contentment, being that which you were born to be and do, a sense of oneness, so on and so forth, are all metaphysical features of conscious existence that confer little if any biological advantages, when emergent instinct is all that's otherwise needed to ensure survival.

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?

So your faith extends to the market. — Banno

To say it correctly, my faith, in this context, is in the free market and free enterprise.

As Friedman stated, businesses should act responsibly with open and free competition without deception and fraud. Fast forwarding from Friedman ( in the 21st century), the new emphasis on the environment coming from what we have learned through modern science and recent statistical trends, should not be excluded from the need to act in a responsible manner.

Accordingly, it can, once again, be argued that it is the Gov'ts wheelhouse to provide for the necessary public safety measures, environmental laws, etc. (rules of the game) to act as a watch dog to help prevent greedy individuals from certain violations and/or unintended accidents/consequences from breaching such laws and/or otherwise help with remediation ( from industrial accidents, oil spills, etc.) ... .

Kind of like Homeland Security. After 9/11, I don't think many have argued against having a watch dog, all for the need to increase security measures nation wide.

And so, economics is far reaching, and this is just a small example of all the players involved in economic policy (s), discipline that effects many things and engages many players. It's almost common sense.

And so, back to the OP, I have yet to hear arguments as to why ALL businessmen make great economists? Perhaps just another troll...

But, people who like to call themselves atheists realize they are outclassed by agnostic arguments...and resort to that petty stuff.

Theists and atheists both are "believers." Theists acknowledge that they are...and revel in it. Atheists pretend they are not...and have to live the lie.

Kind of amusing to watch...especially when you egg them on and see them squirm. — Frank Apisa

Agreed. The tale-tale is indeed, when they get angry and resort to ad hominem. That's a sure sign of frustration about their lack of justification(S).

Kind of like 180.

I think the 'category' of a priori logic associated with computer's is worth a shout-out,
(that you mentioned in your thesis) . As a sort of a cosmic consciousness/computers, ultimately, we will only get out of it what we put into it.

In consideration of the binary aspect of the computer design, we seemingly only have right or wrong, yes/no equations to choose from. The human condition, of course, is much more than that. For example, computing gray areas or sentience and/or other existential phenomena (being and becoming) from simply living life/consciousness, would in effect, cause a computer to crash. It would not know how to compute those 'phenomenal' things because it was designed in a binary fashion (not to mention the complexities of consciousness and subconscious working together violating LEM/bivalence).

Of course, one can make comparisons to computers and the human ability to apperceive pure logic (mathematics), and the a priori. But I think that would be the only fail safe comparison there (?).

Is fundamental logic instinctual to organic cognition as a function for processing certain types of spontaneous causality? To what extent is logical structure infused into the domain of phenomenal perception? — Enrique

Science says that birds, have limited ability to count, but an innate ability nonetheless. Accordingly, a quick study of Kant would infer that the ability to reason through "phenomenal perception" is part of the 'innate phenomenon' known as the synthetic a priori in cognition. The synthetic a priori is partly, a priori knowledge combining innate abilities to reason (logic) and metaphysical wonderment. Both of which infuse sense perception and experience. I think that is where part of the "infusion" manifests.

Do birds wonder about counting things, and does a sense of wonderment confer any biological survival value? Perhaps it is, like you say, an ability of "phenomenal perception" that all creatures somehow to some degree hold innately.

Alternatively, one could reasonably consider the meanings or implications associated with being self-aware in and of itself. Of course, to start there, might could lead to thinking about other innate cognitive structures of the mind, which could uncover other interesting phenomena.

Admitting you are depressed isn't that different from saying that you have a kind of physical wound, of course, people are going to recommend that you get it treated or offer you aid. Depression isn't an intellectual position, it's a mental illness that nobody would choose for themselves and someone in this state of mind either has ideas helping to cause their depression (which is bad) or has ideas shaped by their depression.

That's the issue with illnesses that affect the mind, it is disrupting one's thoughts and interfering with one's ability to think clearly. — Judaka

...interesting views that everyone has contributed thus far, I must say... .

I did think that the aforementioned quote from Judaka was worth noting too, because of the pathological metaphor there. I look at it like the concept of 'extremes'. Meaning, being extremely happy all the time v. being extremely sad all the time. Regarding the former, an analogy would be PBA, the laughing disorder. While it's almost funny just writing about it here, imagine if one could not stop laughing, would it get old? (It might result in a lot of physical pain too... .)

I think in many ways we are back to moderation (Aristotle), balance, yin-yang, integration of opposite's (Maslow), so on and so forth. Put it another way, aside from one's body wearing out, the more you live life, the more fun it is....really!!!!

Beyond this, indeed, depression can be a very very serious disorder that needs immediate attention.

So for starters, 3017, read Epicurus (or Lucretius) and Sextus Empiricus. Read Hobbes and Spinoza too. And maybe, in more contemporary terms, Feuerbach, Deleuze, Dennett, Haack, Stenger, Deutsch, Metzinger, Rovelli, and Meillassoux (or, as I prefer, Brassier). That is, if you want to understand something of what I understand and thereby how I can, with sufficiently strong warrant, claim that theism is not true. (Of course, historical & scientific literacy as well as varieties of entheogenic experiences (i.e. ecstatic techniques) also help.) You make it quite clear, however, that understanding (let alone knowledge) isn't what you're after, 3017. :shade: — 180 Proof

Mmmm, let's see, I did a cursory read and I'm not too impressed with just a few of them:

Dennett: a discruntled atheist who wrote a political atheist book called Consciousness Explained wherein he ends at the beginning; consciousness is a mystery (thus his book say's nothing and a waste of money). The only credit worth giving him is his euphemism for metaphysics, and that being Qualia. So he really doesn't explain anything, does he?

Rovelli: Another political activist (supposed physicist) who was charged in conjunction with his political activity for crimes of opinion related to a strange book. The “new political order” of which Rovelli dreamed never materialized. “The movement failed because it was based on a very bad reading of reality,” he said. The only credit to give him is his views on time being an illusion. And so, if time is an illusion, tell me 180, how does that square with your atheism? You explain time for me, and if you can successfully, you may win the Pulitzer for fiction LOL.

Stenger: He maintained that if consciousness and free will do exist, they will eventually be explained in a scientific manner that invokes neither the mystical nor the supernatural.[citation needed] He criticized those who invoke the perplexities of quantum mechanics in support of the paranormal, mysticism, or supernatural phenomena, writing several books and articles to debunk contemporary pseudoscience. So tell me 180, rather than digress to mysticism, why don't you explain conscious metaphysical phenomena to me?

Spinoza: Now, there is a little bit of common ground, imagine that! What is it about Spinoza that appeals to atheism? (Also, Epicurus, correct me if I'm wrong, disagreed with the Anselm's omni-stuff associated with the mind of God. As a Christian Existentialist, no exceptions taken. And so your point would be what, that our existence is unknown?)

That's just for starters. I want to hear how you reconcile your atheism with materialism and conscious existence. Explain your own existence, can you? If you cannot, then we are back to: When an Atheist makes any and all oral or written statements, judgements, and/or propositions about his/her belief in no God(s), that puts them in the precarious and untenable position of having to defend same.

The argument is that businessmen may do more than just maximise profit. The counterargument, that they cannot fix inflation, does not follow. — Banno

Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems that you may not know what you're talking about. One argument is they should stay in their wheelhouse and worry about their goods and services; company goals & profits, all in a responsible manner as governed by the rules of the game.

If they raise prices as a result of no competition, then shame on free enterprise and capitalism. The freedom afforded by same, encourages entrepeneurs to start businesses that compete against each other, which in turn can reduce inflation. ( Government controls interest rates and money supply to curb inflation, that's their wheelhouse.)

So the OP proposition is that ALL businessmen make good economists, which is (thus far), the so-called non sequitur.

How is it a non sequitur? (Surely you're not just trolling again are you... LOL.)

Oh yes, that's really insightful. I say selfish not as a moral condemnation, because it comes very often from trauma, childhood trauma often. It's just a simple fact that might sound more acceptable if I put it thus: only love is a reason to live. — unenlightened

Indeed. It was me who used the word selfish, but it's kind of appropriate. Selfishness is kind of like pride. There is a good kind of pride (proud of your accomplishments, family, etc.) then there is the bad kind of pride/exaggerated self worth (AKA big ego). Selfishness can be bad if it turns into a sort of narcissistic preoccupation, and fragile ego. And so the good kind of selfishness, is that we are all self-directed individual's with unique qualities we decide to bring to the dance.

Perhaps it comes down to volitional existence. We can choose to participate and be part of a bigger thing, or we can choose to check-out.

Suicide is totally self-centred just as the phrase I quote above indicates. And necessarily, a self-centred view cannot reach a use, a purpose, a meaning, or a reason to live.

When I was in college, I attempted suicide, so I feel compelled to try and offer some insight. Introvertedness, sense of purpose and Being, self-centered-ness, all play a role in the emotional angst that contributes to such suicidal tendencies.

As unenlightened suggested, a 'selfish' person (for a lack of a better description) only looks at their feelings of happiness, purpose, goals, etc.. And to put too much emphasis on oneself, greatly contributes to the existential angst. Constantly worrying about yourself can put you in a funk. In times like those (dark moments where thoughts can easily spiral out of control into nothing but dread), it is best to let be. Feel those feelings of despair for what they are; they are naturally telling you something... .

Become more self-aware and allow for time to pass, and pay particular attention to recognizing that life is all about relationships. Someone built the house you live in; assembled the car you drive, made the food you eat, comes to your graduation event, supports your business (customers) etc. etc.. It is through others that we achieve our goals; sense of purpose, happiness/sadness, open doors/closed doors (yin-yang of life) and so on. Remember we are all interconnected Beings.

Sometimes you can confuse loneliness with boredom. Get out, reach out, and stay engaged and connected. Life is, once again, about relationships.

Btw, call me "scientific materialist" and I'll answer to that every time. — 180 Proof

What's that? And how does that help your cause in defending 'no God'? The truth is, it actually weakens your case because of your inability to describe conscious existence and other existential and metaphysical phenomena.

Alternatively, we are back to : When an Atheist makes any and all oral or written statements, judgements, and/or propositions about his/her belief in no God(s), that puts them in the precarious and untenable position of having to defend same.

So how does your scientific materialism help you? Is everything material? How did consciousness emerge from a piece of wood?

Do tell!!

It's indeed a dumb idea.

It may be the pot [you] calling the kettle black. You seem to be reading something else into his thesis by missing the point ( as usual LOL). Otherwise, the ideology from Friedman basically represents ... "there is one and only one social responsibility of business--to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."

And so, back to the OP, the business man is typically not as concerned with macro economics as he is in maximizing realistic goals of, and for, the company and shareholders-as it should be. As such, it won't make the businessman an experienced expert in global economics or domestic economic policy either. So to say that all business men are experts in macro economic policy is an ignorant judgement, particularly those who repeatedly fail/bankruptcy and profess to be a king's of [national] debt :snicker:

Besides, many businesses are happy to accept a Gov't bail-out check(s) when things get tough. That obviously suggests that Gov't is supposed to know better. Using the sports metaphor, that's why you have offensive and defensive coaches. In principle, each should stay in their respective wheelhouse.

...and that question again displays your muddling of grammar and ontology.
5 — Banno

I feel your pain, hence there are many languages about existence that are mysteriously metaphysical... LOL

So even Anselm is to be rehabilitated... — Banno

No he can't be rehabilitated because the irony is, his argument is a priori and unchanging.

But of course we're not talking about a priori logic are we? In the meantime, I wonder if causation itself is logically necessary for existence :chin:

It's really important for you that god shows up somewhere in creation, — Banno

Thanks. He already has, I believe. At least St. Augustine is consistent with the current scientific theory of cosmological time, believe it or not. After all, (and otherwise) starting with the basics, what is the essence of causation itself :chin:

Or, think of it another way; doesn't turtles all the way down in itself, suggest an eternity of time, of some sort? It's in itself a regressive theory... .

Isn't that already presupposed in your sentence (regardless of whatever span of time)?
Also, there couldn't have been a time when there wasn't anything, since there would at least have been time (check B Rundle). — jorndoe

If eternity is time and time eternity, then yes. But if you add the theory of the BB starting time itself, then that still presupposes something outside of time (eternity itself) creating in-time, temporal time (time as we know it).

If the measurement of time is based on mathematics (the common calendar and clock that basically describes mathematical intervals of time), and mathematics is known to be incomplete (Gödel), then perhaps one could simply analogize to some sort of eternity in time. Time itself, being relative and illusionary/paradoxical, is quite a comprehensive topic... .

From the Newton to Einstein descriptions (not explanations) of the universe, to what happened before the BB (dark energy, expansion/acceleration, inflationary universe, bubble multiverse, etc.) it remains a mystery as to why the BB occurred when it did, creating our existence. But once again, is it no less mysterious than conscious existence and/or self-aware beings who happen to be here wondering about it (?).

So are sensations and emotions part of the "truth" of the universe? Are they metaphysical, like String theory with its mathematical context? — jgill

Very nice!

Mmmm, well 'truth' is a loaded question as they say, but a very good question nonetheless! Revelation starts with asking the right questions, I think. Kind of like Wheeler's game of 20-questions and PAP :chin:

Perhaps the existential truth of the universe is simply conscious existence (self-aware beings). Consciousness, mostly, is a phenomena that includes those metaphysical features of our awareness. And those are without question abstract existing things. And so, in large part, mathematics is also another metaphysical thing or language because they both seem very abstract and non-material, as mentioned previously. They are things that seem logically necessary for existence, yet abstract and not concrete nor do they confer any real biological advantages.

String theory, (combining gravity with QM if I remember correctly) i think, would have to take into consideration conscious existence because its purpose is to calculate a ToE. And because its means/method of using mathematical abstracts is similar to consciousness, it seems like the proper methodology to use. I hope it can be successful some day, but am not too optimistic that we mere mortals can achieve such heights of explaining a type of 'cosmological consciousness' as it were. (I hope I'm wrong, in which case 'true' revelation may occur... .)

Dennet is another example of difficult reading. I got stuck with his book and left it. In my opinion, it's not worth the effort. But I made the effort with Sartre. Why? — David Mo

I agree. It's as if part of his theory was political double-speak to further some hidden agenda. I think he became unaware that he himself got lost in his own crop dust. No matter.

Similarly, Sartre seemed to get too hung-up on the existential angst piece of the puzzle. I like Sartre because he was an existentialist, but I think he harped on dread and despair (as apposed to say the higher reaches of human nature). Sure, there exists finitude and temporality within the human condition (just read Christian philosophy/Ecclesiastes to get a lucid idea of our paradoxical finitude). And like eastern philosophy, there is a reconciliation of two opposing forces called cheerful despair.

https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/six-ideas-from-eastern-philosophy/

Perhaps one of the many takeaway's of existentialism is the recognition and appreciation over the paradox and contradiction concerning the human condition. Self-awareness will always be an inescapable part of the sojourn here. And so why not try to have a broader view of same?

The difference between the two is that the metaphysical ideas can not be proved whatsoever. — Eremit

Well, let's see, that's not really true. Being proved whatsoever obviously needs clarification. Using a truncated definition of Metaphysics ( the nature of existence or existing things) consider a couple quick thoughts.

In consciousness, you have metaphysical phenomena. Universal things like the experience of love, the will to survive, self-awareness, wonder, etc. that we can't really explain in a concrete way, yet they exist in our minds. Are they abstract feelings or experiences? In part they are, because they represent a sensory response which in-turn words cannot really capture or describe, in their entirety. The true nature of the sensory experience transcends common logic. We just use abstract language to convey their meaning.

The other thought relates to engineering formulas and/or gravitational formulas. Are those abstract, why sure they are. Do they represent concrete things? Mathematical engineering formulas can, like in the world of structural engineering. Structural beams are described/designed initially using math. Maybe not so much in gravitational forces/physics itself, but the similarities to abstract languages(s) still apply.

I think where you would have difficulties the most, is where you try to abstractly describe the nature of conscious existence and self-awareness, using mathematical abstracts. For example, viz the human condition, if the commonly referred EM fields of consciousness can capture the nature of the so-called universal phenomenon of love, then there would not be a need for abstract thinking. In other words, what purpose does abstract thinking serve; why does it exist?

Economies are insanely complicated, so we must take many variables for granted and creat core ideas, such as that individuals are always maximizing, which in turn may even be wrong. — Alejandro

Agreed. Economics is very far reaching, particularly global economics. I remember in college reading Milton Friedman's Free to Choose and realized how sensitive economics can be... . It's certainly a far cry from someone opening up a service-economy and/or retail type establishment with a business loan then goes bankrupt a few years later. When you have bookkeepers and tax lawyers, there's only very little one can learn from that.

summary there should be no "economist" that hasn't first started their own business that isn't a consultancy. — Gitonga

I get your point, but don't get lost in the 'all people are bad' dichotomy. There are plenty of business men who have failed and are working in Gov't in their respective fields (some are indeed bad for the country). Kind of like the football coach who got cut from his team when he played. Or the music teacher who can't play. Does that make them good or bad teachers and coaches? Depends. Some people who are exceptionally good at their craft make not so good or even lousy teachers and vise versa. I've seen it.

The other questions relate to people who are successful in private sector and whether that always translates to success in the public sector? And/or those in the public sector having had the political experience, does that always guarantee success?

Perhaps the truly great one's learn the rules, then know how to break some of them, for the benefit of all (not at the expense of others and benefit of few).

Argument from authority: series of witnesses traced back to an original prophet with ultimate credibility.

Argument from emotion: I believe in x, because I feel that it's true.

Argument from self-evidency: look around you, it's just plain obvious.

Argument from experience: just talk to X, and you'll hear an answer. — Spigot

In their respective order:

1. Christian God: Jesus
2. Consciousness: self-awareness & numerous metaphysical phenomena.
3. Cosmology: something and not nothing
4.Congitive science; NDE, Religious experiences, etc