I think there is a better name for that - hint: one word, begins with 'b'. — Wayfarer

Shouldn't that be 'B'?

:up:

Or is being Aoife Jones subject to continual change? — Banno

But could not Aoife Jones be changing continually in a singularly Aofie Jones manner? :wink:

I dispute that. This is the shortcoming of 'plain language' philosophy in a nutshell - it reduces philosophy to the language of insurance contracts or legal statutes. — Wayfarer

Digression: That does make me laugh and I have sometimes said similar things. But the way it's presented is also highly tendentious, using the word 'reduces' and making a comparison to unsexy legalese is a rhetorical stunt. A good one. And not necessarily wrong. But it does suggest a strong bias and the assumption that truth can only be captured in more elaborately decorative and 'received' wording.

It often seems to me, that belief or disbelief in anything transcendental (by scientific notions, say) partly boils down to a person's aesthetic preferences. Often I hear in the words used and sentiments expressed, descriptions that fundamentally come down to what appeals as a more beautiful or tasteful explanation. Sometimes these debates remind me of heated art discussions I used to overhear about the merits of figurative versus abstract art.

Is there something that you feel or think you truly know. — Thinking

No

I don't know, but it might be the case that religious people tend to be happier. — j0e

I think there are robust studies demonstrating that secular countries have happier citizens. Religiosity may not really be about God all that much and more about culture and community belonging.

Therefore, it's more like scientists want to believe in the existence of atoms. — BrianW

And the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 did not want to believe in the existence of atoms.

Fair enough.

Nice! :cheer:

But, she says, in other cultures, and even in earlier Christianity, religious belief was not intended as propositional knowledge, which is part of what she calls 'logos', logic and science. It's properly part of 'mythos', which is the mythical re-telling of human existence, encompassing suffering, redemption, mystery, and many other felt realities which can't be incorporated by logos. — Wayfarer

This is a powerful idea if it is used well.

I'm curious, and you may well decline to do this, but if you were a skeptic, hypothetically making a case against the notion of God (however this looks) what would be some directions you think might be fruitful? This question was put to theologian David Bentley Hart and he immediately said, 'The problem of suffering, especially the innocent and children dying of cancer.' or words to that effect.

Thoughts?

I should make clear that I don't agree with him. But he is the one who said that bothering to oppose a point of view is a recognition of it. Maybe even an argument for it. It comes with the territory. — Valentinus

Sounds like an argument borrowed from the Tao Te Ching. I'm disappointed to learn that Nietzsche is a metaphysician after all. :wink:

Nice and thanks. I just can't read an entire book in this tone. The observations are rich but for me the prose is so swollen, passive aggressive and rhetorically portentous, I just can't do it.

Plato, the greatest enemy of art which Europe has produced up to the present. Plato versus Homer, that is the complete, the true antagonism––on the one side, the whole–hearted "transcendental," the great defamer of life; on the other, its involuntary panegyrist, the golden nature. — Nietzsche

Endless possibilities here. "Plato a douchebag, Homer a genius: discuss". I get the feeling that the people who like FN already agree with him.

Thank you for this fresh meat. Good to know.

I think the historicist or determinist charge is probably fair, but is he not more that this too?

In The Genealogy of Morals, one set of conditions binds the alternatives to it. Changes happen but they are also new expressions of what happened before. Finding this ground is not like consulting a map before taking a trip. — Valentinus

I'll look for an accessible article on Nietzsche's epistemology. Everyone seems to describe him as a perspectivist.

Excellent responses, W. Re Russell I remember this. Did Russell understand or 'get' Nietzsche? I was never quite sure, since I don't get him.

Plato set the bar for knowledge very high. I wonder how much of what we think we know would clear that bar. As I said, I think modern culture creates a safe space for delusion. A lot of what people believe is real, incontravertible, is ephemeral and insubstantial. But it's very hard to perceive that in a culture in which illusion is amplified. — Wayfarer

I think this is true up to a point but this is pretty general and would be better understood (not that I am advocating we do this now) through specific examples. I'm not crazy about your term 'safe space for delusion' as it sounds a bit Dawkins. But I get your drift - perhaps only too well. I understand you're a Platonist of sorts and this position always intrigues me. I don't think mainstream (if there is such a thing left) Western culture amplifies much of substance right now except marketing clichés and appeals to emotion. Science may be amplified in parts of academe but the average person I suspect knows only a little more about science then they do about psychophysical parallelism. Are we entitled to views we can't justify? Maybe this is called being human.

Not that you need to hear this from me, but generally I find your approach to these matters (shall we call it, The Nature of Reality?) balanced and prudent and I know you're stated somewhere that you approach philosophy with a kind of conservatism, despite, from where I am sitting, some more reformist tendencies.

The problem is, as phenomenology saw, that we are in fact not outside or, or separate to, reality as a whole. We're separate from this or that aspect of reality, from the micro- to the cosmic level. But ultimately we're not outside of or apart from reality as such. This is the import of Husserl's concept of lebensworld and umwelt, that we live in a 'meaning world', not a world of objects per se. — Wayfarer

I've thought about this in different ways for many years, and always asked myself how does it assist us and where does it take us? All knowledge is tentative and subject to observer bias and is held in place by a broader cultural presuppositions and personal psychological factors. True. Any method of understanding/apprehending the world has limits or conceits. But some models (to me anyway) have more deficits than others. Living in a 'meaning world' is just another model complete with concerns - which we can dig up later if we need to.

The various critiques of methodological naturalism always reminds me of a cute bit of doggerel I used to see up on the wall in a cake shop:

As you ramble on through life, Brother, Whatever be your goal, Keep your eye upon the doughnut, And not upon the hole.

Wow. You've been busy. Against Theory of Mind Accounts of Autism looks very interesting.

Thanks. I can see how it can provide a model for consideration but I can't se e how it actually works. I have known of film critics who practiced a phenomenological approach to their craft but generally they have been wankers (if you'll forgive the harsh judgment).

I imagine like existentialism the word has numerous applications.

You mention psychotherapy - are you a psychologist or talking about in treatment experiences?

Thanks for this I will need an hour to think it through. Do you practice this? Can you maybe provide a vignette of it at work? Dot points?

I have this great metal detector. Nothing else can detect metal like this thing! And I think it shows beyond doubt that the only things worth collecting are metal things. If you believe otherwise, it's up to you to prove it! — Wayfarer

Nice metaphor. If all you are looking for is X then an X detector is all you will need. Of course in life it is pretty easy to show the guy with the X detector that there are also Y's and Z's of value which can't be found this way. For me the issue is not so much in the nature of a limited approach but in the quality of any evidence or reasons for taking up an alternative approach.

Phenomenology redefines the nature of ‘what is out the window’ just as much as it redefines the subjective aspect of the relation to the world. Husserl spends as much time on the constitution of the real , the empirically objective and the socially constituted interpersonal realm he does on the subjective side. — Joshs

Josh, that sounds good but what does it actually mean? Can someone provide a basic example of phenomenology at work looking out a window or doing something interesting? Vague articulations of subject-object and the observing subject aren't really useful to me unless we can see what the contribution of this perspective might be.

hence, 'physicalism', the contention that what is physical is real. I believe, Tom Storm, this is the paradigm you default to - hence your references to the 'evidential basis' for your beliefs. Of course, you are far from alone there, it's probably the view of the majority. — Wayfarer

I'm sure glad I'm not alone in this - in my shopping for ideas so far in life it seems the most useful approach based on both personal experience and human continuity. But I am interested in what people believe and why.

Sure, the phenomenological perspective is useless for scientific purposes. But one's own experience is all that a person has, and all that is or can be relevant to a person. — baker

No one doubts that but the question remains, so what? To what extent do we want to amplify or diminish this curiosity.

Phenomenology may well study 'you looking out of the window', but what consigns it to the lesser status it suffers is not that, it's the fact that the corpus of information is derives from that study is completely ephemeral, having no anchor of 'fit-to-world' to hold it. — Isaac

Not sure how you can study yourself looking out the window unless it means reflecting on your subjective experience of your experience (sorry for the gratuitous repetition). Introspection, I guess. No doubt there are subtitles that render my understanding barbaric and unformed as far as those in the know are concerned.

There's a long tradition of doing this in a range of ways so I can't dismiss it. I do wonder how one does phenomenology with any kind of rigour and if anyone can provide an example of a benefit it provides in more specific terms.

Although I wanted to make the point about the idea of ‘suspension of judgement’ being not the same thing as ‘unbelief’. — Wayfarer

Is this the same as 'I don't know'?

:up:

Thanks James. Yes, I was intrigued by Rohr and note he is 78. My friend met him in the US 10 years ago and 'hung out' for a bit. I am interested in any connection between contemplation and community activism.

Interesting. I've just been talking to a mate of mine who is a Catholic priest about the Franciscan friar Richard Rohr and Christian contemplation. I started reading Thomas Merton but somehow got distracted.

Of course and I'm sorry. I often think there is no point being and adult if you can't be childish.

I'm not someone who generally trusts their phenomenological impressions. How to you stop your conscious self from providing an 'enhanced' experience of seeing/hearing/doing narrative?

Could it be argued that some forms of meditation are a kind of phenomenology?

What I never understand with Nietzsche is how the negation of all philosophy can itself be included with philosophy. — Wayfarer

It always makes me smile when people say in earnest piety: there is no truth.

Naturalism is the study of 'what you see out the window'. Phenomenology is the study of 'you looking out the window'. — Wayfarer

Do the windows have to be in the same building?

:up:

I wonder if we could get away from JP.

At the risk of bringing this back to Nietzsche, I find myself drawn to this quote:

We have no organ at all for knowledge, for truth: we know (or believe or imagine) precisely as much as may be useful in the interest of the human herd, the species: and even what is here called usefulness is in the end only a belief, something imagined and perhaps precisely that most fatal piece of stupidity by which we shall one day perish.

With the benefit of almost 200 years of scientific progress, specifically in biology, genetics, anthropology and so on, its obvious that morality (of sorts) is evident in animal behaviours — counterpunch

No question. And think of this - if humans didn't have innate empathy we wouldn't have been able to rear children. Empathy is the gateway to a veritable cosmos of moral considerations.

But look at human history since the enlightenment project began.... is there a relationship between this and widespread apathy, the failure of democratic institutions, increased tribalism, the crumbling of social order? You can certainly make a case for this. I'm not a fan of identify politics but I read an interesting piece (can't remember where) that they are the product of our dying Christian tradition rather than the oft referenced post-modern Marxism. Food for thought.

But keep in mind that the evidence will itself be a product of the narrative. New evidence only becomes evidence when the narrative changes. So in a way the shift in paradigm precedes the evidence. — Joshs

I know this is a strong view with some. I wonder if there are some tricks of language involved. I need to ponder more.

Is he right that the complex motivations of individual actors and groups in society can be reduced to the villainous caricatures that he often turns them into? — Joshs

Well, if you have already made the assumption that he is reductive cartoonist, then no. But it could easily be maintained that the power grabs, turf wars and the military industrial complex actions he describes are in fact made by bunch of unnuanced, evil cocksuckers engaged in human rights violations on a daily basis, for mere money, land and ideology.

But this is like talking abstractly about the idea of truth. It is better to look at specific examples of C's work on a given issue and carefully parse his analysis. Is it really so bereft and reductive? I don't have a view and this isn't the place.

I don't think that philosophy counts as that much of a status symbol and most people I know are completely dismissive of my interest — Jack Cummins

The most powerful status symbols are the ones others don't understand. It makes our virtue even more pronounced. Never underestimate the power of the recondite.

Yes, but do you view a scientific theory as essentially a valuative narrative? — Joshs

Depends on the theory but I guess so - I generally think of them as the best model we have for now based on the available evidence.

Interesting take on Chomsky and pretty much what many in the left here were saying about him in the 1980's. Many people also thought him crazy.

But these words by MacFarquhar are more ad hom than a robust analysis of his work. There is a paucity of good examples and it still leaves open the question is he right.

As an atheist ( I assume you are one?), how would you describe the paradigm shift in thinking that takes us from a divine plan to a world which operates via its own mechanisms? — Joshs

Joshs, I appreciate your taking the time.

All atheism means to me is I do not have good evidence to support the proposition that a god exists. Nothing changes in the world based on my belief. The 'facts' do not change only my relationship to them. This is not a significant enough transformative event. I have never been committed to any 'supernatural' ideas so I can't say I have ever experienced the clanging of a paradigm chief inside me. But I well understand the idea from Kuhn and the philosophy of science.

Maybe you don’t think in terms of worldviews , gestalts, paradigms and their transformations when you think about knowledge and the way it changes over the course of cultural history. — Joshs

I work in the area of mental health and addictions so I am well aware of the various narratives held by individuals, sub-cultures and society.

If as an atheist you re-label the relation between the divine plan and the actual world as an internal relationality inherent within nature itself would you say you solved the problem or dissolved it? — Joshs

I have no idea what that means, Josh. What is an internal relationality inherent within nature itself? On the whole re-labeling always makes me nervous. If you re-label a serial killer as a person who is chasing their own bliss and working to reach their full potential does that mean the crimes go away?

It's possible to be indifferent to anything. There are no rules to what we should believe. What I find more interesting is people who think they care about ideas but are really just going through the motions.

However, unfortunately some people can be just as dogmatic in philosophical argument as the ones who are dogmatic in fundamentalist religion. — Jack Cummins

Simple tribalism. It happens in every pursuit, from sport to politics, philosophy to classical music (don't start me on Wagnerians). Human nature doesn't change with the subject of interest. I generally hold that that the more assertive the person is about their argument, the less certain they are in the beliefs.

It sometimes seems that people in our time act as if we are fortunate to be able to understand so fully, but it is hard to know what knowledge is yet to be uncovered. — Jack Cummins

Have you ever thought that the thirst for knowledge, the chasing of knowledge is just another form of sublimated materialism? A form of obsessive collecting disguised as a virtue - ideas in the place of knick-knacks. I suspect our conceptual trinkets are like status symbols and not much use to us in the end. They are no more likely to bring happiness than a Porsche or Rolex. Human life is as complicated or as simple as you want to make it. There aren't all that many questions we must answer - pride drives us to ask more all the time. Shoving ideas into our minds, like a binge eater raiding a fridge, may simply be just another distraction.