But intersubjective agreement is a very weak criterion, and it does not satisfy the belief that some intersubjective agreements are better than others. The quality of intersubjective agreement, taken in itself, can only be a matter of quantity (i.e. how many people agree). Once we begin to vet the subjects, we have introduced a second notion (expertise) that really goes beyond the simple idea of intersubjective agreement. — Leontiskos

This would be rich material for its own thread. Perhaps when you get back. What we also need is someone properly steeped in post-structuralist thinking to unpack the intersubjective and the idea of knowledge and expertise.

(Note I've reverted back to my previous username) — Wayfarer

Noted. In my mind you were always Wayfarer... however I am partial to the novel Don Quixote.

Boy, you posit some provocative and interesting questions. :up:

No, they are not equal, but they are equally intersubjective. — Leontiskos

Agree.

The appeal to "competence" is likely a quasi-knowledge claim. — Leontiskos

Yes, we seem to dip in and out of various epistemologies.

Firstly, in current science, there are many huge interpretive conundrums, for instance the debates about string theory and the multiverse, and whether theories of same ought to be testable in principle — Quixodian

Sure. Aspects of science are also speculative and theoretical.

What really irked me was the demand that 'intellectual honesty dictates' that I acknowledge that common-sense attitude as the arbiter for the truth or otherwise of Buddhist epistemology- exactly as Leontiskos described — Quixodian

Got ya.

As Quixodian has pointed out, this sort of claim is circular. It is only demonstrable to those with the relevant presuppositions and training, and whether such presuppositions and training count as competence merely depends on who you ask. — Leontiskos

While I think this is largely true is it not problematic? Clearly presuppositions are shared by everyone from Nazi's to Jehovah's Witnesses. Are all presuppositions equal just because they may be believed in with equal confidence?

Cool. Thanks.

The vast majority of our scientific knowledge and beliefs are faith-based. The percentage of people who have first-hand knowledge or understanding of any given scientific theory is slim to none, and yet these same people will often know the names and the gist of these theories and will assent to them as being true. — Leontiskos

I can see this argument. Nevertheless, unlike faith based entities (such as gods), there is evidence available for scientific knowledge which people who have education can access and verify and demonstrate to work. I suspect that aligning this testable, demonstrable, if arcane knowledge with faith can lead to conceptual problems elsewhere. Thoughts?

When I catch a plane, a Christian apologist might argue that I have faith the plane will fly. It's true I know little about the engineering or piloting component of flight. However I would say this is having a reasonable confidence the plane will fly. I know planes fly. The evidence is overwhelming that most do so safely. I know there are engineers and pilots and that they have training etc. I don't see this as a matter of faith.

But if positivism replaces metaphysics and then "denies that there is metaphysics," hasn't it invalidated metaphysics? I agree that not all positivism aims at direct invalidation of metaphysics, but I would also want to say that denying the existence of metaphysics counts as a significant form of invalidation. — Leontiskos

Quick question: isn't every position metaphysical? While positivism might maintain that the 'supernatural' is a non-starter (whatever the supernatural turns out to be), isn't it the case that positivism rests on a metaphysical presupposition that reality can be understood, even that naïve realism is true (depending on the form of positivism)?

In my opinion the attempt to start with a method is antithetical to philosophy. It raises a whole host of questions, including - Why a method? Why this method and not some other? — Fooloso4

That seems sound. But sans method can we articulate any kind of approach without being at least partially subject to this concern?

Do you have to have experienced non-depression to know you're depressed? — RogueAI

A provocative question.

We all think we’re special. We usually get our sense of specialness from some characteristic we take pride in. We make claims — to ourselves and to others — about these characteristics. We can go most of our lives telling ourselves a story built around such claims.

But exactly when is it complete bullshit? — Mikie

Interesting. I can only respond with tenuous relevance. I'm not sure I agree that we all think we are special. Many do. Many do not. Some are suicidal with self-loathing or self-denigration. I also sure that many a boundless ego is overcompensating for feelings of inadequacy.

Personally I would say that it is healthy to think we are special in as much as we are the beginning and end of our experience with the world. If we don't treat our unique subjective experience as special - take care of our health, be grateful, be prudent in business, kind to others, etc - we end up suffering and our loved ones suffer with us.

But you mean something different here. Personally I don't know many (if any) who think they are 'the best' at anything. I've never dreamed that big. I would aspire to be competent in and enjoy certain activities. That's always been good enough for me, as I tend to enjoy the experience of doing more than the end result. While I think it's healthy to want to improve at things, the goal is to be the best seems forced and doesn't resonate with me. There's something exhilarating about being a limited, flawed being who makes the most of what they've got.

That which you would do if you had the combined perspective of everyone in society, is the moral thing to do. Just food for thought. — PhilosophyRunner

I think there's merit in Rawls thought experiment. The only thing I wonder about it is that it doesn't teach morality so much as use self-interest as an organising principle.

:up:

What standard can we agree on to judge what is philosophy and what is not? At the very least a a kind of thesis has to be presented and argued for. — Tobias

I've been wondering about this for some time. I've decided that many people have a philosophical imagination and are fond of asking philosophical questions and this may of itself be doing philosophy. But I suspect in most cases, this will also be 'entry level' philosophy - having fun in the shallow end of the pool. Nothing wrong with it, but I suspect unless one is a Wittgensteinian level genius, one is going to continually reinvent the wheel, become lost in one's independent investigations and generally fail to benefit from significant extant philosophical wisdom.

So I was responding to a specific point about the average person ‘asking questions’ about life and how philosophical this might be.

Sorry, I’m not sure what your point is.

These are the sentiments I see expressed over and over again. But what I would point out is that we can never really get away from doing philosophy. This discussion topic and the OP is itself, doing philosophy. By asking if philosophy is still relevant, we are engaging in philosophy. Philosophy means "the love of wisdom" and at its core is about thinking deeply and asking questions and following the argument where it leads, and that is always going to be relevant to the human experience. — GRWelsh

Except that this doesn't seem to gauge whether the philosophy being conducted is any good or not, whether it is systematic or not, whether it builds purposefully on established traditions or not, whether it has learned from mistakes or not. Philosophy may come down to 'thinking about thinking' but if it isn't taking any notice of previous work, just how philosophically useful is it? I'm sure there are any number of neophytes out there who imagine that have discovered solipsism and relativism and will likely remain energetically ignorant of any previous discourse from the tradition.

Thank you "Tom Storm" and "Philosophism" for your replies. You have given me much to think about. So, is my perceived reality actually real or not? Do I have free will or not? Am I right to be a vegan or not? Am I right to be an agnostic or not? How would I know? — Truth Seeker

Answer: you don't know. Although this answer isn't satisfying to some, I think you just have to go with your intuitions. You can have reasonable confidence that you share a reality with others and that there are implications for how that reality is shared. Suffering seems real enough when experienced, so perhaps go with a worldview that works to prevent causing suffering (you can include being a vegan).

When it comes to gods I can't think of any good reasons to believe in them other than old books/traditions. My experience of the world does not include gods in it and, so the arguments (ontological, cosmological, from morality, experience, etc) are not especially relevant.

For me the experience of being human is living with uncertainty and knowing that much of what we believe or hold as true are constructions of mind and culture. I think this can only make life more interesting.

Extending this, I put forth the following bit of speculative thinking. If a person were able to see the stick from every possible perspective (humanly impossible I know), then the combination of all those views, is the objective view. — PhilosophyRunner

That's an enticing frame. It would seem, however that when it comes to a simple object like a stick this could make sense. But how does one apply this to more complex notions of truth in human life - morality, politics, art? Is it possible to see every possible perspective and how does one unify this, or not? How many possible perspectives are there and does truth become meaningless when it is prodigiously multifaceted? Thoughts?

One has to learn how to look. Anyone living in a large cosmopolitan city has inexhaustible worlds within worlds at their disposal, if they learn how to see them. This is the most effective sort of nomadism, the kind that can be achieved by staying in place. — Joshs

Very nice. I missed this when you posted it. I have often said this too. I can take a walk in my city or get on public transport and just by adjusting how I choose to regard things, I am suddenly in a new city, an unfamiliar one - even if I have been through this way hundreds of times before.

There's a richness to this encounter if you (and I am struggling to articulate this) are open to seeing and set aside your preconceptions and anticipations and bring a different form of curiosity to the experience. So much of travel to me seems to be an imaginative act that takes place within us. Maybe you can tidy up the wording for me?

How do you establish the truth of the correspondence theory of truth?

You do philosophy for the reasons people invented philosophy in the first place. And you like "Annie Hall." — T Clark

That's generous of you. Thanks. (love Annie Hall!) I guess I feel in philosophy there is so much to know and understand and so little time, that the situation is almost hopeless for someone like me who hasn't read significant texts and fully understood the ramifications of key concepts. But the good thing is life continues and I am content doing my thing, thinking my thoughts... I'm just aware that every supposition and belief I hold can likely be undermined by robust philosophical reasoning, much of which I don't fully comprehend. It's the conundrum of the layperson.

How would I calculate what percentage of certainty I assign to things such as the objective existence of my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the universe? — Truth Seeker

Good question. I probably wouldn't even begin to go there. I am either convinced of something or not. Percentages add nothing. What is the difference between being certain and being 100% certain? Adding that percentage seems to be a scientistic way of saying, 'I have no doubts'. But so what? What is the difference between 100% and 95% certain? They are functionally the same in as much as we carry on and incorporate that 'certainty' (a bad word) into our presuppositions for life. I see no value in graduating certainty.

I have never subscribed to '100% certainly' style language for anything. My beliefs are based on 'reasonable confidence' via the best evidence I have available at the time. I take it as a given that we don't have access to any ultimate style truth and that truth is itself an abstraction which looks different in different contexts. We don't really need any more than this to go about our business.

To start at philosophy one should....

1. Read a philosophy text and attempt to understand it.
2. Read a different philosophy text, even by the same author, and attempt to understand it.
3. Compare and contrast the two texts. If able write some things down to attempt to solidify your thoughts. Share it with anyone interested!
4. Repeat, if desired, or add a rule. (Purposefully ambiguous) — Moliere

Interesting idea. I suspect different personalities need different approaches. I would struggle to finish most texts as they are either largely incomprehensible or dull (to me). Obtaining a useful reading of a great work is not something you can readily do unassisted.

I think a good beginning might be to get an overarching sense of what philosophy does, the questions it examines and then perhaps look more closely at some matters - morality or aesthetics, say, and see what some key thinkers have said. I might then start reading some papers and gradually work my way to a full text.

I would not attempt to actually 'do ' philosophy, I don't have the expertise. I think for most people it is enough to be aware of some of the central questions and have some idea about the direction philosophy can take in resolving or dissolving such questions. And perhaps even develop some sympathies for one approach or another, recognizing such views are likely to be tentative and incomplete.

1. All we ever have is beliefs.

2. We [ mostly ] use 'true' to say that we have or share a belief. — plaque flag

I find your approach interesting. I remember someone saying something like truth is subjectivity we share together. I guess that expresses the notion of the often maligned intersubjectivity.

Like many, I don't think we can ever arrive at an Archimedean point - a value free, prefect position of revealed reality.

How do you classify various types of truth claim? I guess truth is an abstraction and isn't a property which looks identical wherever it is said to exist. To say Jesus is the truth is one thing. To say technology via science provides working mobile phones is quite another type of claim.

:up:

This is the Blind Spot, which the authors show lies behind our scientific conundrums about time and the origin of the universe, quantum physics, life, AI and the mind, consciousness, and Earth as a planetary system." That is a salient diagnosis of the modern 'problem of knowledge' in my opinion. But if you tell me you don't see the point, then I won't press it! — Quixodian

It seems a reasonable point - and no doubt there are numerous complexities and implications involved, but isn't this notion ultimately similar to the basis of phenomenology? And even Nietzsche's view that truth/reality is perspectival. I would have thought overall a relatively common philosophical presupposition, even if it is antithetical to some accounts of science, say, as understanding reality as it really is.

I'd say that a person's personal Jesus incorporates some of the religious community's picture of Jesus.
I think we agree. How we decide to count the number is not important. — Art48

I agree but you did write -

led me to the idea that there are two very different types of Jesus: 1) New Testament Jesus and 2) personal Jesus — Art48

I have often been struck by a believer's impersonal Jesus - the important thing for me is the frequent lack of individual commitment - believers so often do not arrive at a picture of Jesus through deliberation, but often passively receive their messiah from a third party who did all the hard thinking and came to all the conclusions. Jesus is against homosexuality only in as much as Preacher Smith or Dad is against homosexuality.

In my discussions with Fundamentalists, I recall again and again believers with almost knowledge of the Bible and an account of Jesus so stunted and derivative that it scarcely counts as Christianity.

I try to look through the surface associations of terminology with my X-ray structuralist goggles. The passionate communist is as 'spiritually' motivated as the born again Christian on fire with Jesus.

The heroic is the numinous. Or call it the ego ideal. Many phrases are good enough once the structural role is grasped. Stirner called it the sacred and the highest essence. It's as if we are programmed to decide upon and enact a heroism. — plaque flag

That's a fascinating notion and rings true for me.

But yes, idealism has difficulty in avoiding solipsism, as I’ve explained previously. It usually needs God’s help. — Banno

Well, as Simon Blackburn has said, whatever our theoretical metaphysical commitments, we're almost all realists as soon as we walk out the door.

Schopenhauer is vociferously atheist. — Quixodian

I guess in his case 'will' is a kind of god surrogate in as much as it holds our shared reality together. Like Kastrup's Mind at Large. The fact that will is understood as blind and striving (unlike God who is judgmental and aggrieved) doesn't mean it isn't the metaphysical source of transcendence and unity. Any thoughts on this?

Reflecting on the incidents led me to the idea that there are two very different types of Jesus: 1) New Testament Jesus and 2) personal Jesus. New Testament Jesus is the Jesus of scripture, the character described in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and other New Testament books. Personal Jesus is the Jesus as imagined by some person. Everyone who believes in Jesus believes in their own personal Jesus. The relation of the believer and personal Jesus is identical to the relation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to Sherlock Holmes; it’s identical to the relation of J. K. Rowling to Harry Potter. — Art48

I suspect that there's a third Jesus - that of the religious community a person belongs to. Often based on a priest's or preacher's version. Many followers are too 'frightened' to formulate their own notions and surrender to the account of a compelling and authoritative apologist or cleric. This may then come to be seen as personal Jesus, but is not one based on a significant and original interpretative act and is generally shared intersubjectivity with a religious community. In most cases, your Daves or Anns do not arrive at their Jesus without strong, persuasive influences and regular reinforcement.

I think the importance of major thinkers consists in just a very few insights central to the human condition, and the rest, all the arguments designed to justify those ideas are relatively tedious, obsessively driven filler. Of course, I am speaking only for myself.

When I read, and I do read a lot, but in a very scattered fashion, I read mainly for aesthetic pleasure. I need a story, rather than a complex argument, to hold my attention; I just have little confidence that following along, sloggin' it, with a complicated argument will yield any fruit worth the effort in the end. Life is short... — Janus

This is very interesting to me. I tend to read to catch up with things and I think my reading for aesthetic pleasure is over for the time being.

My view of complex arguments and 'high theory' is that they make almost no difference to how I live my life. I am not an academic, nor do I feel the need to remain up to date. I also don't have the disposition to follow complex arguments across scores of intractable pages. I find I'm more interested in people's presuppositions rather than the vast edifices they often erect upon these foundations.

But supposing there was a god, can we all agree that this world is sufficiently evil enough to account for an evil god? — schopenhauer1

It seems an obvious inference to make, although I would not use the word 'evil' - it's too loaded. Bracketing those supposed 'omnis', we might also posit from this observation of our lethal, broken world that any god responsible is limited and flawed - perhaps it means well but creation has its own ideas...

But frankly the world, with all its chaos, ugliness and suffering also seems exactly the kind of world you would have if there were no deities responsible or in charge.

Needless to say, there are number of games we can play to rationalise this situation - both as atheists or theists.

The salient question for me seems to be a different one - what kind of world would we expect to see if there were gods?

I think it's much broader and more diffuse than that - it's rejection of whatever is considered 'the supernatural' or even 'the sacred' (or arguably the identification of 'the sacred' with 'the natural') — Quixodian

Yes, I’ve addressed that. I know many atheists who accept astrology, ghosts, Bigfoot, etc.

I also know atheist idealists.

I think atheism is less totalising that some of the famous polemicists would have us think. Maybe it’s more the secular humanist skeptics?

I think ucarr is correct in identifying the conviction that life arises from non-life (abiogenesis) is central to that belief system. — Quixodian

Many hold to this. I wish more folks would just say ‘who knows’ and just go back to being useful. Life and consciousness are a mystery for now. It may well be the product of natural phenomena but who can say? Would we utterly reject this and insert a gods ‘holding statement’ to take care of it? Sounds like a ‘gaps’ problem.

I'm not atheist, although I have no doubt my Christian forbears would believe me so. — Quixodian

I think you probably are. What you are not is a scientistic materialist.

Would you welcome god(s) to break bread with you before making such offer to fundamentalists? — ucarr

I’m always happy to accept guests as long as they are courteous and kind. Even fundamentalists, of which my Grandmother was one.

As far as what I learned from this conversation, I'm wondering if, above all else, atheism seeks to deny necessary supplication before a dictatorial overlord in the sky via belief in abiogenesis devoid of intent. — ucarr

I wouldn't think so. Atheism is just one thing - a disbelief in gods. Some atheists believe in astrology and ghosts. Some are logical positivists. There is no atheist worldview. It's just that most of the famous ones, like Dawkins are inclined towards scientism and rail against religion.

The nature of purported gods is unknown to us, but we have a plethora of stories contained in world religions and in personal interpretations of those systems. For my money, we are incapable of making sense of this vast range of contradictory and complicated literature, but people being meaning making creatures, will almost always invent a foundational narrative to carry them through life.

I am an atheist with minimal interest in cosmology. The origin of the universe, how life came about, the nature of consciousness, are speculative and almost irrelevant to my experience of life. I am not concerned with scientistic system building or trying to explain reality. Even experts of genius struggle to grapple with these matters and disagree with each other.

For me, the arguments for or against god are of minimal significance. They are only useful in tackling the arrogance of fundamentalism - a demonstration that certainty sits on unstable foundations.

For me, belief in god is like a sexual preference - you are likely born with predilections, tastes, dispositions. I have no sensus divinitatis and if you have no capacity to take the idea of gods seriously and there are no gods around to meet, all you have left is a bunch of mouldering and sometimes complicated arguments which never quite satisfy anyone.

Settling down means accepting the good and bad of your environment; settling down means taking responsibility for your interaction with the environment. You settle down based on static premises, yet you yourself are not. Why not leave when you feel like it? Why not bask in the boundless potential of anywhere? Why not always search? Why not always discover? — Ø implies everything

I am lazy. I don't often enjoy travel. I have little interest in discovery or searching. I'm not looking for anything. I do a road trip every now and then and drive hundreds of miles into the Australian outback, but I am always glad to come home to my familiar city. I enjoy predictability. I live in the centre of a big city and a few meters from by building there is constant chaos and activity. I think a craving for novelty is probably down to disposition.

I think this is an important point and another reason why it is important to understand some philosophy rather than - and I could so easily do this - make up my own nonsense.

As a scientist, I do not know of anyone who uses a 'scientific method'. Imagine a private investigator trying to solve a case. They can build on the experience of themselves and others, but ultimately they will use whatever currently legitimate tools are available. — Richard Goldstein

This is similar to what Susan Haack argues.

There is, in short, a constantly evolving array of scientific methods, tools, and techniques of inquiry—methods, tools, etc., often local to specific scientific fields, though sometimes proving useful elsewhere, too. Insofar as these methods, tools, and techniques stretch scientists’ imaginative powers, extend their unaided evidential reach, refine their appraisal of where evidence points, and help sustain honesty, provide incentives to the patience and persistence required by scientific work, and facilitate the communication of results, they enable progress: better measurements, better theories, more sensitive instruments, subtler techniques, finer-grained experimental design, more informative terminology, and so on.

- Scientism and its Discontents Susan Haack

The physicist is a wizard who summons nuclear fire, perhaps to destroy cities, perhaps to save the world with cheap energy. The biologist tweaks the code of life, perhaps to summon pandemics, perhaps to end aging forever.

What can the philosopher offer ? — plaque flag

Since you mentioned nuclear annihilation and physicists - wouldn't it be the case that many people think philosophers have annihilated human values, unleashing relativism, hopelessness and nihilism? Scientists and experts are not much liked or trusted, but I would think poststructuralists and postmodernists have provoked as much popular outrage and disapproval as any other type of maven or wizard. Philosophy continues to slaughter gods, bringing with in the extermination of tradition and certainty. Turning cities into fireballs is one thing, but how about wiping out foundationalism and with it identity and truth... :razz:

While others could become the stuff of history? Does philosophy still contribute? When you are reading it, do you feel you are contributing? — Pantagruel

It's certainly possible to live a rich and rewarding life without making a study of philosophy. But aren't all human knowledge projects founded on presuppositions based on philosophy? Can we escape philosophy? The question seems to point to awareness - to what extent will we make the effort to examine our beliefs and values and the source of our presuppositions?

Studying and teaching philosophy does not make one a "real philosopher". Like Plato, Nietzsche is an elitist. The real philosopher is the rare exception. Whatever light the philosopher brings to the cave it remains a cave. The transformation brought about by philosophy is self-transformation. — Fooloso4

This resonates with me.

While much is made of Nietzsche’s Dionysian desires, it is the Apollonian maxim: know thyself, that is central to Nietzsche. But to know yourself you must become who you are. This is not a matter of discovery but of creation. Nietzsche takes the exhortation to become who you are from the Greek poet Pindar. — Fooloso4

Does this mean we can't really 'know' unless we are engaged in an active process of transformation? How do we know what self we should create? What is the starting point? And is becoming who we are a potential multiplicity of selves?

That's interesting -- and then, upon trying the cure we find it unsatisfactory, so we think "time to try another one" and so the loop continues. — Moliere

Sounds about right.

I think I just got stuck on philosophy, basically. I found more satisfying answers, and more importantly questions and methods, there. But also I've never really hidden the fact that my motivations come from a religious background. — Moliere

Yes, I think most things boil down to personal preferences and then, often, we select some reasoning as post hoc justifications. I never pursued philosophy, but I did read a little comparative religion and explored a range of spiritual schools 30 years ago. But I've simply found the notion of gods incoherent. The arguments against theism are just garnish. I have come to the conclusion that I simply lack sensus divinitatis - which is probably a Protestant notion more than a Catholic one.

I'm interested and forgive me if this is obvious, do you subscribe to any form of theism? Do you beleive that the universe is a created artefact by some kind of deity?

So by your argument above, a 'god' figure is an inevitability, built into the fabric of reality? Does this not mean that god is contingent and not a necessary being? If we temporarily set aside your argument, have you got a tentative backstory for why this is the case or what the meaning of all this might be?