What function do the memories of my brother serve — Andrew4Handel

I'd say we developed memory because it had significant utility - remembering what was safe to eat, what caused sickness sand death, how to stay safe from predators, etc. Recognizing friend from foe, family from stranger requires memory too. No doubt memory has a range of other utilities that allows humans to plan, strategize, nurture, survive. The bonus is that you have early memories of siblings, parents, friends.

Most "Christians" don't have the vaguest knowledge about some of the things their "lord and master" said. — Art48

Indeed. Sounds like we are in agreement.

Is it possible some philosophers when writing run out of ideas, but continue writing? :chin: — jgill

Hard to imagine that they don't, given it happens to so many writers, journalists, politicians, artists, etc. Almost anyone who earns a living by trying to stay relevant, eventually ends up as depleted currency.

You're right but that's religion in a nutshell, a community of folk who often know little about their traditions. That's why there are priests and pastors to gatekeep the material.

But how do we avoid a No True Scotsman fallacy on this?

I personally hold to the view that a Christian is anyone who believes they are a Christian. No matter how twisted or emasculated the faith might seem to someone else. After all, Christians have counted among their adherents Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu and cheerful members of the KKK. Contradiction and absurdity are every bit as connected to faith traditions as prayer and worship.

Selves also are almost logical absolutes. The tradition of a ghost in the machine of the body, which is held responsible for telling a coherent story, seems unavoidable. A culture without selves like this would be like a culture without wheels or fire. It's a technology so basic we think it came from god. — plaque flag

That's a cool way of framing things.

:up:

(Still feel as though the point I was labouring has somewhat slipped the net here.) — Wayfarer

Could be.

Standard readings of mathematical claims entail the existence of mathematical objects. But, our best epistemic theories seem to deny that knowledge of mathematical objects is possible.

Why is this? Because apparently our 'best epistemic theories' include the assumption that

human beings [are] physical creatures whose capacities for learning are exhausted by our physical bodies.

Whereas,

Some philosophers, called rationalists, claim that we have a special, non-sensory capacity for understanding mathematical truths, a rational insight arising from pure thought.

The basic drift of the remainder of the article is this:

The indispensability argument in the philosophy of mathematics is an attempt to justify our mathematical beliefs about abstract objects, while avoiding any appeal to rational insight. Its most significant proponent was Willard van Orman Quine. — Wayfarer

Nicely crystalized.

On the same theme - what is your take on the notion that reason requires some kind of guarantor for it to operate. The logical absolutes; identify, non-contraction and excluded middle seem to make reason and math and this conversation possible. Muslims and Christians will, of course, argue that God is the guarantor. More complex thinkers will find other metaphysical justifications, variations of Platonism. How do you account for it?

I tend to hold that such absolutes are probably how human minds are cognitively arranged in order to make sense of reality. Do they map to 'reality'; do they operate outside of a human perspective?

Can you clarify - can you identify how a 'true believer' would behave and how you can tell if someone believes in god, other than making an inference based on what you believe you have observed?

As to not caring about what others think of my viewpoints, I don't think I am anywhere near alone there. In all my time on these forums i have rarely seen anyone change their views on account of a counterargument. — Janus

Goodness. That's interesting. Do we come here to sharpen our monomanias, perhaps? :razz:

This is an interesting matter which has range of implications and uses.

Empiricism and naturalism have an innate bias against the idea of innate knowledge (irony alert! — Wayfarer

Which is why the case of math is so interesting. Is it your contention that humans have an innate knowledge of the divine?

Whereas, I believe that the a priori reflects innate structures within the mind that are operative in the exercise of reason. — Wayfarer

Does this make you a Kantian?

I also idly speculate that the realm of necessary facts is somehow connected to an intuitive understanding of what must always be the case, in order for the world to be as it is. — Wayfarer

Interesting, can you say some more to clarify this point? Are you saying, for instance, that space/time is part of human's innate cognitive apparatus - it constructs our understanding of reality?

"What some people believe and why" is a metaphysical question, that won't be answered with empirical evidence. — Gnomon

I think you are over complicating. It is answered when they say what their beliefs are and why they believe them.

Yet, the general consensus of a Big Bang beginning, left a Big ("god") Gap to be filled by reasonable speculation — Gnomon

Or unreasonable and uneducated speculation. I am not a cosmologist and the poorly named Big Bang is of minimal interest. Anyone can read Paul Davies, Roger Penrose or Lawrence Krauss if they want a range of simplified conjecture based on expertise. I leave the matter there. :wink:

Nagel's point is that if we are to be considered rational beings, then this is because we accept the testimony of reason, not because we are compelled to do so by the requirements of adaptation, but because we can see the truth of its statements. I think it is that power to discern apodictic truths which caused the ancients to grant it a kind of quasi-religious status, and conversely the tendency to deprecate reason as simply an evolved capacity is an indicator of a kind of deep irrationality. — Wayfarer

In other words, reason suggests naturalism is false, or at least, incomplete, that there's an explanation needed to account for our preference for such self-evident truths?

I hear you :up:

Does silence bring about higher quality living? — Bret Bernhoft

Maybe. I think it’s a preference. I like silence. And I can go days without talking. I feel no benefits from it except the joy of silence itself.

Beautifully written OP and interesting that this is your perspective as someone with expertise in the field.

Everything can and will be called into question and this is mistakenly taken to be a great and wise philosophical accomplishment. In truth, it is nihilism, an impotent gasp that consoles itself for being novel. But there is nothing novel about it. — Fooloso4

I've often held that I am a reluctant post-modernist - perhaps an untheorized post-modernist. We absorb this material by osmosis (it's the era) and though other disciplines like social theory. I can't help but hold the view that reality is an act of constructionism - we can't identify absolute truth (which is likely a remnant of Greek philosophy and Christianity) and philosophical positions we might hold appear to be culturally located. This does not feel especially wise or clever to me.

I think we can still create tentative notions of 'the good' based on secular mechanisms (themselves derivatives of older philosophy) - do no harm, prevent suffering, human flourishing, etc. But epistemology and metaphysics seem to go on endlessly, with no bottom in sight, unless you decide upon a foundational position. This can be an act of defiance or faith depending upon your viewpoint.

As a non philosopher I must confess that much of what I've attempted to read in primary texts is dull and I am frequently left with the urge to compose shopping lists rather than continue. I can't be the only modern reader who finds most of the material punishing.

I've been watching the odd panel discussion by a UK organisation called the IAI, Institute of Art and Ideas, which regularly hosts debates between leading public intellectuals, scientists, and philosophers — Wayfarer

Me too. There's no question that there is a thirst for making meaning or contextualizing ourselves - even if this is desire for more theorized forms of nihilism or relativism, such as the IAI's Hilary Lawson's work on Closure (he would probably resent that description).

Would not the concept of beautiful and how one sees it depend upon one's wisdom?

In moral teachings the beautiful is often connected to the good. — Fooloso4

In people, the beautiful are often amongst our most treacherous. :razz:

That's a surprising position on a philosophy forum — Gnomon

Well, there is mysterianism which takes a similar view. But I am not a philosopher - just interested in what the themes and issues are and what some people believe and why.

What may be surprising on a philosophy forum is members who know the limitations of what they can say.

As Descartes concluded, Personal Consciousness is the only thing we know for sure — Gnomon

Can I even be sure of that? How do I know it is me doing the thinking? For instance, I have worked for many years with people who experience mental ill health - thought insertion is a common experience. Not to mention disembodied voices. The experience of these is that they are not produced by your own mind.

Those who weren't around in 1994 (in that world) can't 'get' (without serious effort ?) what grunge meant. — plaque flag

Quick digression. I have no idea what grunge meant and I was there. Nirvana, I take it? Don't know any of their music. I've never participated in popular or contemporary music or culture, so the period when I was young - 80's/90's - is a black hole of films, TV and music unconsumed, except, perhaps, through ads and cultural osmosis. We don't all inhabit the same place, even when we do. :wink:

The reasons you (and others) have for taking seriously the possibility of some supernatural claims are:

- Worldwide anecdotes and first person accounts of experiences.
- Limitations of naturalist accounts (eg mind from no mind; something from nothing; mind/body)
- Contemplative traditions and scriptural accounts.

Any personal experiences?

Can you assist me in improving the language I have used to describe these above?

We can then get back to Hegel. :wink:

I hear you. I think we probably need to take a more deflationary or minimalist view of the subject. Rather than trying to talk about The Supernatural - what is it specifically in terms of a particular claim made? We can investigate specific instances, such as life after death, theism, fairies, the soul, etc. I would need to take an evidentialist approach to these kinds of claims.

I think this is an entirely fair question. And of course, the only available answer must be that humans can gain 'higher awareness' though certain contemplative practices. They might also argue that reasoning can demonstrate catastrophic gaps in the naturalistic worldview - e.g., idealism, the evolutionary argument against naturalism, arguments for mathematical Platonism, etc.

I'm not convinced, but where else can you go with this?

Bloom quotes Hegel noticing that Shakespeare's characters overhear themselves and for that reason change. — plaque flag

It's a cool observation. Next stop: metacognition.

For Hegel, we 'are' God. Theology itself is God. [ God is 'just' incarnate theology, etc. ] — plaque flag

Which means what exactly? That we invent concepts and that's enough to be getting on with? Is the metaphor the thing itself? Does by this account Shakespeare's play become Hamlet? (I'm not referencing Bloom's Invention of the Human, unless you insist). :wink:

Out of interest can you site a reference for Hegel actually employing the thesis-antithesis-synthesis model?

Whereas, the general consensus on this forum is that any claims of religious revelation or accounts of the divine arising from religious or mystical traditions generally should be disregarded as valid sources of knowledge and/or information and should be put to one side. Would you agree with that? — Wayfarer

No. I think there are plenty of folk here who don't hold to naturalism. Even moderators. :wink: I personally don't have reason to accept any accounts/claims that come through mystical traditions, but I would need to investigate specific instances.

But it has to be said that a supernatural realm or entity (whatever that even means) can't just be asserted with no demonstration or at least an example. Doesn't seem to be a useful starting point. To use the OP's analogy - how can you translate a language until you know it is a language?

Perhaps if the OP has said - let's suppose for the sake of argument that X exists... that might have been more fruitful beginning. It would be useful to have a specific example.

Would you apply that same thinking to hell or to other religion's versions of paradise and hell? Zoroastrian? Islamic?

The better question might be do we have any good reasons to speculate that there is a heaven?

Amongst religious people I know, it has often been the subject of speculation whether there is sex in heaven, or whether we have genitals or not. Can I take a piss under my favourite lemon tree in paradise? Many religious folk (Muslims are notorious for versions of this) hold to childlike accounts of heaven as a ceaseless, vulgar, Las Vegas-style party in the sky, where there is always a show (Elvis is there, of course) and you can eat and do what you want... for free.

But it seams reasonable to think - if we speculate about this notion from a more 'spiritual' and less crassly materialistic perspective - that there would be some kind of transformation when you enter heaven - as a spirit self, the orientations, beliefs and appetites of a physical self would be gone and replaced by something wholly incomprehensible to us 'down here'.

If something helps us to interpret experiences of the divine/supernatural, then it helps us to understand the divine/supernatural. This is to say that if something helps us to interpret something that we experience, then it helps us to understand that thing. For example, we can conceptualise this as translating language. People can speak to us in any language they want, but we cannot understand them unless we can interpret what they are saying in a way that we can understand it. This works the same for divine/supernatural experiences. To understand such a thing, we must be able to interpret it. Therefore, if anything can help us to interpret such an experience, then it, in turn, helps to understand that experience. — ClayG

I have no knowledge of Hegel but your introductory presuppositions seem problematic.

You seem to begin with an assumption there is a supernatural or divine. How did you arrive at this?

Would the first step not be describing what a supernatural account is and why it would require such interpretive steps (Hegel as medium)? Perhaps I have you wrong but the analogy with a foreign language seems limited since when we hear a foreign language, we know it is a language and we can still understand some things. We also have a demonstration of a language being used. The supernatural, as far as we are aware, provides no such demonstration and might be said to consist of silence, which some people fill with claims or speculations.

Therefore, Hegel’s dialectical model can help us understand experiences of the divine/supernatural. — ClayG

Perhaps what you would need to do is take an example of a specific supernatural claim and apply this dialectic to it? Demonstrate it in action. I'm not even sure if thesis-antithesis-synthesis are pure Hegel or not. I think this was Fichte.

I see a need to clarify what I mean by the general label for topics related to enigmas like Consciousness. — Gnomon

I don't think you do. It's my point that needs clarification. Like most people, I have no expertise in consciousness and only a passing interest. And the subject is a hotbed of controversy and incomplete understanding. Why would I attempt to acquire an account of it with those limitations? Ditto quantum physics. I am more than comfortable staying away. And I wish more people with no expertise would also stay away from such matters.

As to the more general use of the term 'incomplete understanding'. I take the view that humans are storytellers and build tentative accounts of 'truth' that are useful (or not) for certain purposes. I do not think we arrive at absolute truth. What we tend to do is inherit and choose accounts that, in our judgement, are useful to us.

Consciousness" as an "Illusory phenomenon" sounds like an interesting topic for another thread. Unless you want to pursue it in this one. Are illusions physical or meta-physical? — Gnomon

See above also. But I was just referencing how Dennett's account is often understood.

Putting it differently, the traditional approach is to treat past, present and future as having separate contents and the. line them up in a sequence. We could instead glom them onto each other and say that we have freed ourselves of linear time by making these three contents (past, present, future) simultaneous. But that is not what Heidegger is doing. He is letting the future lead the show. The future isn’t the not-yet , but a kind of scaffolding into which the present emerges. The having-been is already shaped and defined by how this scaffolding produces the present, so that is why Heidegger says the past comes to us via the future. — Joshs

Interesting and vivid description. Can we 'un-linear' ourselves in practice? What does an account like this mean for day-to-day living and how can it be utilised in human thought?

Indeed.

With Pascal’s wager, it seems better to act as though God exists, praying daily, attending church, etc. Even if God does not exist, you lose less than if He does exist, but you act as though He doesn’t. — Katiee

The wager is a pretty shallow and ineffective idea. For a start, what if Allah is real and you are praying to Yahweh? Or what if Brahma is god but you're banking on Jesus? Or what if Yahweh subscribes to Presbyterian sectarianism and thinks Catholicism is condemnable heresy and you are posing as a Catholic?

It's hard to see how insincere praying can work out for the phoney who thinks with gods (and who is to say there's only one deity?) that you can fake it until you make it. If god is omniscient are they not likely to see through your posturing and regard you as a contemptible putz?

Got ya.

The character in the books you refer to may be homophobic. But what reason do you have for believing that an old book which says a thing is correct? A better account of Scripture might be that such stories are reflections of human yearning and prejudice.

“I treasure the Bible. I live in it and work on it all the time. But it is not the word of God. It’s the tribal story of a particular people, and the best thing about that story is that the story keeps growing and evolving.”

— John Shelby Spong

Aesthetics is a matter of taste. If someone finds Christianity and the idea of God beautiful, I have no argument with them believing. You seem to find life mostly ugly, I don't; I find it mostly beautiful, so we are coming at this from different ends of the stick. Finding life ugly can actually be a motivation for religious faith. The lesson here is that not everyone does, or should, see things just the way you or I do. It's not really a matter of argument at all in my view. — Janus

Nicely constructed.

I would have thought the first things to ask yourself and to really drill down upon are some more basic questions:

1. What reason do I have to believe Christianity is anything more than a myth written by anonymous sources (gospels) which were copies of copies of translations of copies, many decades after the supposed events?

2. Why do I use certain reasons to justify my belief in Christianity when these can be equality applied to Islam, or many other religions to justify them? How did I dismiss those other religions but not my own?

One of my favourite Christian writers is Bishop John Shelbey Spong (an Episcopalian) who was pretty ruthless towards some of the more appalling practices and presuppositions of Christians.

Perhaps the most telling witness against the claim of accurate history for the Bible comes when we read the earliest narrative of the crucifixion found in Mark's gospel and discover that it is not based on eyewitness testimony at all.

John Shelby Spong

The Bible has lost every major battle it has ever fought. The Bible was quoted to defend slavery and the bible lost. The Bible was quoted to keep women silent, and the Bible lost. And the Bible is being quoted to deny homosexuals their equal rights, and the Bible will lose.
John Shelby Spong

:lol:

As with the question of Being, he strives to keep the questioning going. I suspect that if asked what he believes he would deflect and say that what is important is not his beliefs but thinking. — Fooloso4

I am unable to discern what Heidegger thinks about god from those references.

As the most being-like, God is the first cause and the last goal of all beings. God is represented as the most being-like of beings, and so God essentially occurs out of beyng. Nevertheless, God is not primordially linked to beyng; because beyng occurs essentially not as cause and never as ground. — Joshs

I can't tell if this is describing god as extant or god as the idea is understood.

Ha! What would philosophers do with their free time, if "metaphysical speculation" was not permitted by the truth censors? :smile: — Gnomon

I hear you. I guess I'm saying I am the truth censor in my own life.

Yes, that's a good clarification.

The one I saw on a t-Shirt.

Goodness. :worry: