For something to count as knowledge it needs to be demonstrable to others. — Janus

And who are those "others"? Toddlers? Senile old men? Teenagers? Bored housewives? Poles? Argentinians? Jews? Stamp collectors? Chemistry teachers? Who?

Who is your epistemic community?

The whole of the human race? Probably not.

You do sound like you're lecturing here. — Wayfarer

Indeed, it's tedious to have to repeat the same point over and over again.

this is a philosophy forum, and philosophers should know better than to attempt to do religion/spirituality on the terms of science or philosophy. I'm amazed that they don't; I wonder why this is so. I mean, they are supposed to be so much smarter than I! So why are they making such a basic mistake?!
— baker

Who are you referring to? I think there are philosophers and even scientists who have a clear understanding of these distinctions.

I haven't met any!

The point I was trying to get across was in response to your question "why is 'religious' knowledge any different to physics?' And the answer I was trying to give, is that it is of a different order, it is not concerned with objective measurement, but with your state of being. I don't see that as a controversial distinction. There is such a discipline as 'sacred science' (scientia sacra) which can be found in the classical tradition of Western philosophy and theology, but it's worlds apart from the approach of modern science.

Religious/spiritual knowledge is a field of knowledge in its own right. Physics knowledge is a field of knowledge in its own right. Mathematics is a field of knowledge in its own right. Biology is a field of knowledge in its own right. Culinary knowledge is a field of knowledge in its own right. Fashion knowledge is a field of knowledge in its own right. And so on.

And people generally treat physics, mathematics, biology, culinary science, fashion etc. etc. as fields of knowledge, each in its own right.

But when it comes to religion/spirituality, they drop this distinction, and treat religion/spirituality as something that should be readily, easily accessible to just anyone, from toddlers to senile old men, from bored housewives to academics with multiple advanced degrees. As if religion/spirituality would require no qualification. People admit that even talking about haircuts or how to fold socks isn't something that just any Joe Average can do, no, even for things like that, they grant that one must know this and that. But religion/spirituality is supposed to be fair game, for everyone. Now that's strange!

And knowledge of it is not a pre-requisite for the faithful in any religion, to my understanding.

Indeed, it's not, but they do have to hold some tenets as true (such as that holy scriptures are a direct revelation from God).

Is this a term that means anything much to you? — Tom Storm

Duh, of course it's an important term! People have been fighting over it for millennia, so it definitely has to matter!

It's not strictly "my terms". It's what's accepted in the philosophical community, as specified by epistemology. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why should religious/spiritual people hold the philosophical community as authoritative over the religious/spiritual community?

Knowledge requires justification. You can't just say "I know God because I talk to Him every night". Such a use of "know" is unacceptable by epistemological standards. So in reality, it's you who is relying on idiosyncratic use of words. Your use of "know" is not consistent with philosophical standards.

No, your use of religious/spiritual terms is not consistent with religious/spiritual use.

You are imposing your standards on a magisterium that is foreign to you and to which you are a foreigner.

I'm just trying to get you to see the disjoint between the way you think and the way others think. And simply insisting that your way is right doesn't get you anywhere because you need to demonstrate that you are right. Of course, if what you are insisting on is that you do not need to demonstrate what you are insisting on, then you have a problem.

Do you feel the need to demonstrate to the religious/spiritual people that you are right? Yes, you probably do. Do you think the religious/spiritual people should see your standards as authoritative? Yes, you probably think that too.

Do the religious/spiritual people think they need to abide by your standards? They don't. Do the religious/spiritual people feel the need they need to demonstrate to you that they are right? No, they don't.

Tough luck.



What I've been saying all along is that Western philosophy is handling religion/spirituality on terms that are extraneous to religion/spirituality, and as such, necessarily misleading at the very least. And just because Western philosophy has been doing this for centuries doesn't make it right.

Western philosophy is acting outside of its competence when it talks on the topic of God, but thereby means Jehovah or Vishnu or Allah.

If philosophers want to talk about the "god of philosophers", that's their thing, their prerogative. But they should stop fooling themselves, and others, that this way, they are making any relevant claims about Jehovah or Vishnu or Allah.

Unless God just is the text, you are abusing 'direct' here. 'I don't want to sit and talk about Jesus,...I just want to see his face.' — hanaH

Well, that's your problem then. And what are you doing about it?

No, you're dead wrong and actually have it backwards: I am concerned with arguing that religion/ spirituality cannot be done on the terms of science or philosophy, or on any terms analogous to them. In other words they are matters of faith, not knowledge.

And just for the record; I'm not saying there is anything wrong with having religious or spiritual faith, provided you are intelligent and honest enough to realize that that is what it is, and not to conflate it with knowledge. Such a conflation is dangerous; it is the first step towards fundamentalism. — Janus

Oh, thanks, massa.

No one can ever know that they have access to truth in any absolute sense. — Janus

So ironic.
— baker

No, I wasn't being ironic. How could anyone possibly have access to absolute truth?

Well, someone making the claim "No one can ever know that they have access to truth in any absolute sense" certainly presumes to have access to absolute truth.

No one can ever know that they have access to truth in any absolute sense. — Janus

So ironic.

The only people who seemed to be concerned with "doing religion/ spirituality on the terms of science or philosophy" seem to be those who consider themselves to be religious/ spiritual. — Janus

Eh?

Sure, there are some religious/spiritual people who do that, but what I'm saying refers primarily to people like yourself, people who are proponents of science.

What makes a difference to any kind of epistemic responsibility is having good reasons to select or dismiss evidence before weighing what is left in the 'accepted' pile, those reasons being other than that it's saying something you disagree with. — Isaac

But how can you have such good reasons for selecting or dismissing evidence, if you're not actually an expert in the field?

I don't necessarily blame the universities, but we all know ambition and ego poison the well. — theRiddler

I was referring to something Flannery O'Connor said:

Everywhere I go, I'm asked if I think the universities stifle writers. My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a bestseller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.

Similarly, becoming an academic or a person with an advanced degree is too easy these days.

"If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it—the life of that man is one long sin against mankind."
— WK Clifford

Figured this was worth sharing. — Xtrix

Indeed, something you should try every now and then.

Your self-confidence and authoritarianism are outstanding. You do very good in life.

Yes, universities don't stifle enough people.

Abortion will always be a fact of life. — Tom Storm

Because women live to TOLO! And they must live to TOLO!

*sigh*

Knowing God through holy scriptures is a form of direct knowledge of God.
— baker

But looking at the dire history of conflict and intra-religious persecution in Christianity hardly supports that idea. It's not as if the whole Church has ever come to a unified understanding of the Word, far from it. History is testimony to that. — Wayfarer

So? I don't see the multitude of what is being put forward as the word of God or how to properly understand it as a deterrent from the principle that knowing God through holy scriptures is a form of direct knowledge of God. (This principle is something that various monotheisms agree on, even if they radically disagree on the details.)

Religion/spirituality is not a charity; it doesn't have a no child left behind policy; it's not egalitarian; it's not democratic. Once one understands this, one's expectations about religion/spirituality change dramatically, and the usual objections (such as those put forward by atheists) become irrelevant (as one comes to see them being born either out of infantile insecurity, or blind, habitual aggressiveness).

Physicists and scientists generally study objective phenomena and the forces which act on them.

In religious disciplines disciplines generally you are that which you seek to know. It's worlds apart.

Only if one approaches the religious discipline on one's own terms. It's a strange thing to do religion/spirituality with the intent to "find oneself", and thereby mean "find oneself" in some worldly sense that is extraneous to the religious/spiritual path one is pursuing.

I think there needs to be a clear awareness of the distinction between faith and knowledge, especially as this is a philosophy forum. You can't just declare that faith IS knowledge, it basically obliterates a real distinction. And I'm not saying that from the perspective of overall rejection of religion, like a lot of people.

Indeed, this is a philosophy forum, and philosophers should know better than to attempt to do religion/spirituality on the terms of science or philosophy. I'm amazed that they don't; I wonder why this is so. I mean, they are supposed to be so much smarter than I! So why are they making such a basic mistake?!

There is a certain quality of one's mind, or spirit, which, at any given time, one either has or doesn't have, and which cannot be obtained overnight, or by contemplating a syllogism.

How would you be able to tell the difference? I have known highly intelligent people who thought Osho was the real deal (including the eminent German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk who was a disciple for some time).

I know you think Osho was a charlatan, but why would your opinion in such a matter be worth any more than anyone else's? It's obviously not, so it all really just comes down to personal interpretation and belief. — Janus

So what are you really concerned about? The wellbeing of mankind? Or something more personal, such as are you afraid of being duped? Are you afraid of other people seeing you being duped?

You sound so insecure, like a teenager.

these people's knowledge is not derived from the observational, empirical knowledge, but is a (directly) received revelation from God.
— baker

Many Christians would never claim to know God directly. — Wayfarer

Knowing God through holy scriptures is a form of direct knowledge of God. Holy scriptures are a direct revelation from God, so when you read or hear them, you are directly knowing God.

-- This, at least, is the epistemology that is put forward by some monotheists.

The question of the nature of religious knowledge is very interesting in my view.

Indeed, but to me, the interesting part is how opponents attempt to know religious/spiritual truth in every other way but the one actually put forth by the religion/spirituality. (And then, predictably, end up empty-handed.)

But, generally, we don't know. We see 'through a glass, darkly' - hints and signs, feelings and intuitions. One day, maybe.

I don't see it that way. If the monotheists say that God is to be known in a descending process, ie. that God reveals himself to man, and this is how man comes to know God -- then why should I dispute that?

I don't dispute the methods through which, say, physicists come to their knowledge. Why would I dispute the methods through which theists come to their knowledge?

I direct you to ' post. And my own to another poster https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/608689

Some people here in Europe think that the US is pretty much the Dark Ages. This idea has been around for decades.

Nor, regrettably, much by way of anti-Trumps. — Wayfarer

Exactly. Can the US even produce a viable counterpart to a Trump? Could a counterpart to a Trump even survive in the US?

The university system to me seems to be instilling a sense of class separation and control through just the same phenomena; the proposed oligarchy of the intelligentsia. As if we haven't seen that mentality utterly fail over and over again throughout history. — kudos

But where did it fail? I can't think of any examples.

you underestimate him
— baker

Just remind me, which President lost his party the Senate, the Congress, and the White House, after only one term?

Don't fall for the illusion that he's powerful. Falling for the illusion is the only thing that makes him powerful. — Wayfarer

Donald Trump might now indeed be what you say. But he is a sign of something much bigger, much more powerful, more pervasive than any one single person is or could be. Even if he doesn't get reelected, it's quite possible that someone just like him, and worse, will be. Because this is what America is all about.

It requires enough faith in people that you can allow them to discover their own way.

Every generation faces challenges to that faith. People who want to destroy that faith abound. You're an example of a person who's never had that faith.

It's not for everyone. That's for sure. — frank

How ironic then that your Founding Fathers instated the Electoral College, precisely because they didn't have the faith that people should be "allowed to discover their own way".

Anyway, it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you, because you're such a dichotomous thinker. As is typical for Americans ...

Aren't you from eastern Europe? If so, you get no wow from me. You're what I would expect. — frank

And you're an American cowboy.

Given what you said, can an ordinary plonker be a Stoic, or is that just a middle-class lifestyle fantasy? — Tom Storm

To the former -- probably not. The plebeian is just not fit to be a Stoic.

To the latter -- yes. Normal middle-class people shudder at the mere thought of taking seriously ideas that there are gods, or that we're all part of a whole, that all is determined, etc. So they whittle Stoicism down to something politically correct, something palatable for the middle class and the bourgeoisie, but this way, they also render it impotent. Jordan Peterson's lobster eating SSRI taking bloke?! Eh. I think Stoicism is actually so "far out there" that much of it doesn't even register in the minds of many modern people.

Personally, I read the writings of the Stoics in the sense as if they were written by a rich, powerful, healthy man. Read otherwise, they are just depressing.

This really isn't rocket science. But yes, modern-day people tend to lack a sense of proper pride and dignity, so they can't relate to those who have them.

Drop political correctness for a moment and try to envision yourself as a powerful member of a powerful tribe. Can you do it?

That's in roundabout how the Stoic feels about himself, except that his reference frame isn't the powerful tribe, but Nature, the Divine.

Mahayana emptiness is not the same as Theravada emptiness. Normally, when Buddhists talk of emptiness, they mean it in the Mahayana sense ("nothing has any inherent existence or nature"). But that's not what it means in Theravada, e.g. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/integrityofemptiness.html

What do you mean 'some background'. You were brought up as a buddhist? How does that make it easier to think about suffering? — I like sushi

I've been around Buddhism in one way or another for more than twenty years. I've studied some of the Pali Suttas, and I can find my way around Theravada doctrine, and also in roundabout other Buddhist schools.

Especially in the context of Early Buddhism, it is often said that the Buddha taught only one thing: Suffering and the end of suffering. With all this talk about suffering, one becomes comfortable enough to think and talk about it.

; in fact, they see the whole point of life in them.
— baker

That has nothing to do with AN.. — schopenhauer1

Did you not speak of pursuing other pleasures, apart from having children?

And the resemblance to Buddhism is the life is suffering aspect. Agreed about the solution to the problem.

The AN does not usually need karma, reincarnation or similar ideas,

Which is why antinatalism is so impotent. ha.

unless some kind of metaphor (which just makes it a Western version something similar to cause/effect/contingency). Buddhism, like Pessimism sees the system suffering of desire.. Schopenhauer had some great parallels he mentions in The World as Will and Representation. You should read passages from Book 4. The 8 fold path and such is interesting, but no such prescription except wholesale asceticism, compassion, and aesthetic contemplation is offered by Schop and I believe he thought that only certain character-types will be able to endure the path of asceticism.

Yes, character-types like these:

I conclude that you are not familiar with Christian theology then, and especially have not read Thomas Aquinas. He explicitly states (Summa Theologica, Q.2, Art.2) "Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us." — Metaphysician Undercover

And you have not read the Catechism of the RCC, I presume?

And look, even in the passage you quote, it is said first: "Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us."

Aquinas assumes the existence of God can be self-evident to us. Making inferences based on His effects is only a secondary epistemic method.

Monotheists frequently demonstrate their knowledge of God with other monotheists; they form an epistemic community.
— baker

These two statements directly contradict each other. Suppose I approach you, and insist "God can only be known directly". Then I say, "let me demonstrate my knowledge of God to you." Or, in the inverse order?

For monotheists who are part of the same monotheistic epistemic community, this is not a problem.

You keep insisting on approaching the topic of knowing God on your own terms that are extraneous to monotheism (and you interpret standard monotheistic references to suit this agenda of yours).

You wouldn't approach mathematics or chemistry on your own terms, would you? No, you comply with the demands of the field of knowledge. It's pretty much only when it comes to religion/spirituality that so many people insist on their own terms. As if religion/spirituality wouldn't be a field of knowledge in its own right.

↪baker I don't see it that way at all: I see it as knowing yourself better with the added benefit of others' experience. — Janus

Really? When, say, Evangelical Christians tell you who you really are, do you deem yourself as "knowing yourself better"?

If there were someone who knows, how could she demonstrate her knowledge such that everyone would be able to see that in fact she does know?
— Janus

Why everyone?

Can you explain?
— baker

Any knowledge which is reliably transmissable is intersubjectively corroborable; so if anyone understood what consciousness is in a way which was demonstrable it would have already been demonstrated.

You didn't answer my question.

So, the notion that some people could, together or independently, know what consciousness is, even though nobody else knows what they know, or even that they know, seems nonsensical.

And yet some people can, together or independently, know fancy stuff in, say, advanced mathematics or nuclear physics, even though nobody else knows what they know, or even that they know -- and nobody frets about it!!


How is it that only when it comes to religious/spiritual topics, that the vocal opponents of those fields of knowledge demand that said knowledge either be accessible, demonstrable to everyone, indiscriminately, regardless of their age, intellectual prowess, education, interest -- or we must claim there's nothing to it?!

The idea that God can be known directly is nonsensical.

And you display this same kind of confidence about other things you don't know?

That's why the enlightened don't go around preaching to the unenlightened.

By definition, special knowledge is the prerogative of the specialists. The masses must remain unenlightened unless they make an effort to acquire special knowledge.

On their part, the enlightened must compromise and externally adapt to the world of the unenlightened.

But inwardly, that is, intellectually and spiritually, they have been set free from ignorance. — Apollodorus

Yes.

My intention was to formulate a simple argument that demonstrates the absurdity of believing that suffering is the only moral end, in order to stimulate discussion over what other moral ends there might be. I believe this argument also demonstrates the absurdity of believing that suffering is always the highest-prioritized ethical end. — darthbarracuda

Sure, suffering is okay -- as long as it's not you who has to suffer.

Let's say life starts,idk, 8 weeks after conception such that abortion after that point is wrong. Now, say the genetic modification was done on week 0. Does that make it ok? Point is, if the genetic modification was done before life starts, is it then ok? After all, there is no one to suffer an injustice right? — khaled

No, "idk" is not good enough. In your scenario, everything hinges on where you place the beginning of life/personhood.

Secondly, your scenario is partly analogous to putting poison in a well and claiming that as long as nobody drinks from the well, there is no injustice. But what if you don't warn people about the poisoned water? What if people have no other well to drink from, except this one?

I never viewed the Stoic as a Carpe Diem entity. I always thought Jordan Petersons lobster eating SSRI taking bloke was closer to what can be conceived as a Stoic. — Shawn

No. You must envision a proud and capable military general as an exemplary Stoic.

They [modern-day stoics] have abandoned the metaphysical underpinnings of Stoicism, which, however, are of vital importance for contextualizing Stoic ethics, making them actionable, without too much difficulty and regret.
— baker

This isn’t a very objectionable claim, being so oddly expressed, but it feels like I should object, so I will object, and demand that you at least try to substantiate it. — praxis

I'm pretty sure we've been over this at least once. E.g. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543997

Not sure how else to respond to the claim that Theravada Buddhists don't believe in emptiness. — praxis

They don't. "Emptiness" is not part of Theravada doctrine. Individual Theravadins, even many of them, believe all kinds of things, such as lucky charms or praying to Quan Yin. But that doesn't make those things part of Theravada doctrine.

In other languages the addition of “to be” and “to do” is less exaggerated as maybe they believe to “do” is a form of “to be” and perhaps vice versa, therefore doesn’t have to be reiterated. Instead of “I am going” it’s more equivalent to “I going” or “I currently go” — Benj96

You seem to be talking about grammatical aspect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect

Also in other languages we express these same sentiments with the possessive verb “to have” or the action verb “To do”.

You seem to be talking about auxiliary verbs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_verb

And yet we're also as polarized and tribal as ever before. — Xtrix

Not everyone is like that; and not everyone who isn't in one or the other camp is a "fence sitter".
But those who think in polarized, dichotomous terms don't see that; to such polarized thinkers, a person is either in one camp or another, or a deplorable fence sitter, and that's it.

Do we not have an epistemic responsibility in life? If our actions have ripple effects, and our actions are largely an outgrowth of our beliefs, then isn't it irresponsible to believe in things that lead to harmful actions? Shouldn't we be more careful about what we believe in? — Xtrix

It's not possible to meaningfully and without hostility address this while thinking in the above-mentioned polarized terms.