| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Debating with Christians > Reality |
| Posted by: crazy-tiger Feb 20 2005, 05:26 AM |
| Something occured to me last night... how do we know that what we percieve AS reality IS reality? It seems to me that we have no way of knowing that it is, as we would have to have knowledge from outside our perception of reality to compare to what we percieve reality to be. The problem with that is, the moment we gain that knowledge it becomes part of our perception of reality and thus we cannot compare it. If we did, we would be comparing our perception of reality to our perception of reality. Another thing that occured to me, (and this had me laughing) is that what we've been calling our worldview IS how we percieve reality. Now, since we cannot compare reality to what we percieve as reality, how can we ever state that one perception (worldview) is correct while the other perceptions (worldviews) are wrong? We can't. No matter how much knowledge you might recieve from Reality, the moment you recieve it, it has become part of your perception of reality and any attempt to compare it to your perception is flawed in that it will ALWAYS show that your perception is correct. That works for every single perception (worldview) in existence, and shows that it doesn't work. So, can you compare your perception of reality to information given to you by God? No, as the moment you recieve it, it becomes part of your perception of reality. Can you claim that your perception of reality IS Reality? No, since your proof that it is, is nothing more than your perception of reality, and what you would be calling Reality would be nothing more that your perception of reality. To anyone who wants to try and prove that their worldview is correct, can I just say one thing? Stop deluding yourself, it cannot be done... |
| Posted by: ficino Feb 20 2005, 05:31 AM |
| Hey, Crazy Tiger. What you say is pretty close to what Schopenhauer said. Have you been reading him, or are you coming to your conclusions independently? |
| Posted by: crazy-tiger Feb 20 2005, 05:39 AM | ||
Who? I've never heard of the guy... I think I might have to look him up though, see what he has to say on the subject. |
| Posted by: lalli Feb 20 2005, 07:16 AM |
| I had a similar thought several years ago, and was very proud of it until I learned that Descartes got there first. I've hated the bastard ever since. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 20 2005, 07:55 AM |
| Similar questions have been raised before -- they are essentially "How do we know we aren't all in the Matrix?". Good Question. What this means, for those of us who are honest, is that we realize we are all presuppositionalists on one level or another -- it is just a question of where you draw the line (where your presuppositions begin). For some the presupposition begins with the adoption of either/or logic (western logic) and for others it begins with the adoption of a belief in G_d. Whatever the case -- I'm interested in a dialog with people who recognize the limitations of their world view (and presuppositions) and not 'evangelists' who are too busy declaring a 'win' to be worth speaking with. |
| Posted by: Clergicide Feb 20 2005, 08:12 AM |
| Oh God...Quine made Gerbil crazier |
| Posted by: ficino Feb 20 2005, 08:17 AM |
| Mad_Gerbil, good question, I too ask it frequently in different ways. Do you think there's a difference between a first principle, to which we appeal to explain everything else, and the first things we start with in our attempt to construct knowledge? My thought is, we start with experience. Our brain is wired to organize experience in a certain way. Language is set up to enable us to talk about experience in a certain way. I'm supposing both the brain and language are instruments, though of different orders. Eventually in an inquiry we push the boundaries back far enough until we come to some first principles (I GUESS presup/TAG folks mean by "presupposition" what Aristotle meant by "first principle" or "arche." but I'm not sure yet.) We can't justify a first principle by appeal to one behind it. Its "mettle" is proved by its eficacy in every case without exception (since otherwise it would be a theory and not a first principle). My problem: in no way can the Bible as a collection of propositions amount in its aggregate to a set of first principles. Behind those propositions are the substyrates of the human brain and language, which unbelievers and believers share. So, in a discussion, there is a big common ground. We stand in the same circle. Then we subdivide parts of that circle. Don't you think? Otherwise, how can we all discuss stuff on sites like this? To try to account for principles like the classical laws of thought by appealing to God is to say that they are not first principles. But "God is" is not a first principle, since it doesn't function as a necessary assumption in each and every inquiry. If one refuses to adopt, say, the Law of Non-Contradiction as a first principle of logic, and instead demands a justification for it by appeal to X, then X becomes the first principle. But why not subsequently demand a justification for X (in this case, God)? And so on to infinity? If Van Til tells me I have to appeal to God to justify my belief in the classical laws of logic, then I ask him to what further principle we must go to justify belief in God. Van Til tells me there's no further principle behind God. So are we back in his and your different circles, with no recourse? I think we do have recourse- back to the starting point of experience and laws of thought. If Christian doctrine is disproved by experience and by instances of self-contradiction in the Bible, we may not have gained a big, overarching principle that explains everything, but we can at least be justified in chucking out Christianity as a candidate. That's a way of thinking consistent with scientific inquiry and rationality, and a pretty good one, I'd say. Even animals know certain things and have intelligence. They have brains and rudimentary language and organize experience in a way that gets them through life. That's knowledge. My cat knows how to get Ken and me to give her extra portions of food, and she succeeds quite consistently. Why do I need appeal to God to explain that? (ID arguments are a different e-mail!) What do you think of the above? Sorry it's long. No football, no hockey, long postee. cheers |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 20 2005, 10:26 AM |
| You fuckers. I posted a detailed thread on the epistemic-metaphysical distinction MONTHS AGO. God dammit, read Kant's noumenal-phenomenal distinction. Shit why does this crap always crop up...  EDIT: Added angry smiley. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 20 2005, 10:45 AM | ||||||||
You’ll have to clarify that. If I understand you the problem I see in using experience to get back to a first principle is that a first principle is an important component for interpreting an experience. Using atheism and theism as an example: Two brothers, one an atheist and one a theist, have a terminally ill father. The father dies. The atheist proclaims that the death is evidence that G_d doesn’t answer prayer. The theist finds power in the comforting of the Holy Spirit though a difficult time. Reverse the outcome with the father regaining full health. The atheist proclaims the wonders of modern medicine. The theist proclaims that G_d answers prayer. In short, both world views find validation no matter what happens with the terminally ill father. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We’d probably be surprised how often we speak past each other. Also, people on this site regularly jump part way into each other’s world views – just long enough to find a flaw – and then jump right back out again and claim they’ve defeated the opponent’s world view. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not familiar with Van Til but this paragraph you wrote makes sense to me. I think; however, that it would be fair for Van Til to turn the tables back on you and ask for a justification for stopping at logic. If the rule is that a first principle must be justified then all first principles must be justified. He probably makes the claim (that G_d is the first principle obvious to all) because he likely feels the existence of G_d is obvious and only denied by people who are angry and disappointed with G_d. Atheists here claim otherwise.
I don’t believe that either the scientific method or logic disproves G_d – so we’ll have to disagree there. I agree; however, that experiences are an important part of truth seeking. I would likely agree with Van Til that G_d is the first principle and things like logic, experience, science, aesthetics, emotion and so on are the tools we use to ‘detect’ the first principle. Divine revelation became necessary when we began to use these tools in particularly ineffective ways (for instance, by over emphasizing one tool over the others). NOTE: You’ll have to excuse this mess of a post. I’m assuming that I understand what you are saying when you say ‘first principle’ and ‘presuppositional’. Chances are there are a myriad of definitions for these words. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 20 2005, 10:47 AM | ||
LOL! People have to take these things when they are ready for them Spooky. |
| Posted by: bdp Feb 20 2005, 11:00 AM |
| ...reality used to be a friend of mine... bdp |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 20 2005, 11:19 AM | ||
The major underlying difference is that one explanation (NOT necessarily a psychological rationalization) takes place within the context of existence, the metaphysical and epistemic primary. The latter does not. For example, in the 50s there was a UFO cult that believed they were the only ones that would be "saved" from a flood that God would unleash to destroy the world. They gathered on the prophecized night, chanted, prayed, and sung. When the day passed without any torrents of rain that caused a flood... The atheists proclaimed that the UFO cult was wrong and delusional. The UFO cult members proclaims that the faith of the cult saved the world from destruction, and increased their recruitment attempts. ARE these two statements equal in justified truth value? Why or why not? If you think that the two statements are unequal, you must admit that on some level there is a qualitative difference between the two models of justification. If you don't think the two statements are unequal, your model of epistemology collapses and the line between truth and falsehood is blurred. |
| Posted by: ficino Feb 20 2005, 11:21 AM |
| Dear Mad_Gerbil, This screen drives me crazy. The right side of your reply is cut off. Just the way the screen is right now cut off on the right when I type. That's part of the reason why I make so many misspellings in my typing (other reason is my stupidity). The point I was trying to make about first principles in Aristotle (and I think in R.G. Collingwood, who calls them "presuppositions") is that by the nature of the case, one cannot and should not ask for a justification of a first principle within an area of inquiry. You can take a "meta"-step to a higher, more general area of inquiry, from which to seek a demonstration of a first principle that operates in a more restricted, "lower" area of inquiry. For example, perhaps you could seek to justify first principles of physics by appealing to philosophy of science in general, plus maybe some mathematical principles. But if your area of inquiry is human thought in general, you reach first principles for all knowledge, like the Law of Non-Contradiction. You cannot appeal behind it for a further justification. If you could find a principle behind it, it would not be a first principle-- that one would. Plus, you use the principle of Non-Con. in your attempt itself. Something like this is what I understand Van Til and others to do with the proposition, God exists, or God guarantees truth, or the like. I don't think that works, for reasons I tried to set forth (as have many others on this site and elsewhere). About what I mean by "starting point": there I'm trying to talk about the opposite end of the inquiry, the beginning. At that point one is already using first principles like the Law of Non-Contradiction, but one hasn't yet pushed the inquiry back to it in a demonstration. I think with most judgments about the world, we start with experience and work back to find explanation, no? We have to rely on induction, which raises problems, since there's dispute about whether induction can support a demonstration (Mr. Spooky cited some "yes" votes of philosophers on this a while back). So your example of the dead father: both Christian son and atheist son experience the same data, i.e. they see their dad's lifeless body and perhaps test to see whether he's really dead. They can agree on that because they rely on the evidence of the senses. So far, both possess knowledge. Christian son starts speculating about whether dad's consciousness continues somewhere, etc. Atheist son either says "I don't know" or says "probably not" or even "no." Now the inquiry isn't about verifying life functions. The inquiry is about a topic that is not open to intersubjective verification. This inquiry about dad's soul is not the subject of scientific knowledge. That fact doesn't exclude both sons from having knowledge about matters verifiable by the senses or by medical instruments that extend the range of the senses. About many of these inquiries (metaphysical questions, moral deliberations, aesthetic judgments) we have sharp disagreements because as a race, humanity lacks a methodology accepted by all. Here I agree we stand in different circles. But we all share many pieces of knowledge in other domains. My belief about TAG is that it is convincing only to people who are persuaded that you have to have a theory of everything in order to say you know one thing. I don't see why that follows or why we should accept that thesis. ESPECIALLY I think the book called the Bible does a singularly bad job of providing a theory of everything. I think TAG is a rhetorical strategy more than it is an attempt to solve philosophical problems. I hope this makes sense. |
| Posted by: ficino Feb 20 2005, 11:39 AM |
| Mr. Spooky, I have not only read Kant but have read Schopenhauer's correction of Kant (in German, and in Fraktur, to boot). I don't know whom you include among "you fuckers." Some of us admit to being rather forgetful people, as well. So we benefit from your instruction and reminders. BTW good example of the competing "worldviews" of the UFO cult and the atheists. |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 20 2005, 11:49 AM |
| Er... sorry, Ficino. I think it's my banner. It's altering the world of ExC by its wicked sick awesomeness. I think the ROOT of the problem that Gerbil has made is that he has mistaken any model that fits the facts to be a genuine Explanation. This is not the case. For example, if my alarm clock rang, there are several possible models to make that event "intelligible" to me... 1) I set it earlier and it's ringing now. 2) Some pixies went inside and tinkered with the innards of the clock, making it ring. 3) God did it. Can all of these fit the facts? Yes, yes they can. But there is one that is the best model that serves as a genuine Explanation, one which can be cross-referenced with other empirical data and makes sense in the greater body of data, all without appealing to extraneous entities and without contradicting other elements of knowledge. CAN God function as a genuine Explanation for an event? Let's look at this a little closer. Suppose a scientist/philosopher sees a burst of light in the sky. A woman sitting next to him says "Hey, what was that?" The scientist/philosopher doesn't have any data yet so the best he can answer is, "I don't know what caused it, and I don't know how it was caused. But I'll find out." The first part is a statement of IGNORANCE... the scientist/philosopher is IGNORANT of the facts, but the latter shows that he is willing to do an inquiry into the matter. 1) The cause is unknown. 2) The mechanics behind the cause are unknown. The scientist/philosopher has an additional statement: 3) Let's find out. Now let's look at an explanation of "God did it..." 1) The cause (i.e. God) is unknowable. 2) The mechanics (i.e. supernatural powers/magic) are unknowable. As you can see, this is EXACTLY the same as the statement of Ignorance in quality. To a greater degree, but qualitatively exactly the same. God cannot function as an explanation, because positing a supernatural cause with supernatural mechanics is NOT an explanation, it is an ADMISSION that one DOES NOT have an explanation. What's worse, not only is it an admission of ignorance, but it also avoids, ignores and dismisses any genuine inquiry into the matter. So there is a huge qualitative difference between the Atheist who uses present material means of metaphysical and epistemic existence to provide an explanation, and the Theist who jumps directly to "God did it." ~Corallary: I recommend Smith's chapter about natural theology in "Atheism: The Case Against God," supplemented with his chapter on reason and epistemological skepticism and some of his book "Why Atheism?" to expand on that. |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 20 2005, 11:51 AM | ||
Of ficino, you know I love you. Please forgive me and I will give you chocolate and "personal favors." I can change, baby. Sorry, I'm just genuinely frustrated over the ridiculousness of epistemic and phenomenological skepticism that became such pop-culture drivel ever since The Matrix came out. I mean, sure, yes, Cartesian skepticism is a great starting point, but it's the BEGINNING of an inquiry, not the end. Again, I'm sorry and I love you. |
| Posted by: Diogenes Feb 20 2005, 11:56 AM | ||
I've hated Descartes since my Analytic Geometry courses in school. Glad to know I've got company. |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 20 2005, 11:58 AM |
| By the way, I'm embarrassed to admit that I used to be a hard-core Cartesian Skeptic who was totally into the subjectivism of metaphysics and reason. Hey, it's appealing when you're young. |
| Posted by: ficino Feb 20 2005, 06:23 PM |
| Mr. Spooky, you rock my world. One cool "personal favor" would be the next installment of your lecture notes. How are the lectures going, btw? |
| Posted by: Euthyphro Feb 20 2005, 06:33 PM | ||
Our perception of reality is contingent on self evident things that have limitations. When religions speak of Gods they can never say anything that is coherent. Infinity is incoherent. Try to picture all of infinty in your mind. There is no way for us to test God(s). So, in regards Religion, all we have is a blind faith in incoherent abstract concepts. Religious beliefs are a placebo. They do not help us to navigate in our environment. Only an immoral thug would turn a blind eye, to the self contradicting, and incoherent statements of their own Religion while nay saying someone elses Religion. That is precisely why I hate Islam, and Christianity. At best we get soft chauvinism, and bigotry from those religions. A persons world view can consist of a blind faith in self contradicting, incoherent abstract concepts, in addition to things that are unanomously self evident to everyones physical senses. Whether God(s) exists or not, Logic for US HUMANS , can only be built on axioms that have a coherent identity( Something has identity because of a things limitations), in order for us to navigate sucessfuly in this reality. Religion is a thing of the mind only. To deny what is self evident to our physical senses is a self refutation. To deny our feelings about our self contradicting, incoherent abstract concepts is not a self refutation to our physical senses. Our physical senses are the only thing that keeps us all on the same page in the book of human existence. How is it that scientists and craftsmen are mostly on the same page, when religionists mostly are not? No scripture has given us instruction (scientific method) in developing Technology. We have practical reasons for trusting the Scientific Method to explain reality. |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 20 2005, 09:18 PM | ||
I was referring to sexual favors, but I can do that too.  I'll try to get the next set finished soon... by sheer coinicidence, there was a section about TAG in this one, and with the recent debate I wanted to update it. |
| Posted by: Slayer-2004 Feb 20 2005, 09:24 PM | ||
Bravvo . o: |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 20 2005, 09:26 PM |
| http://exchristian.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2648 Here's a link to the thread on epistemological skepticism I made just a couple months ago. I'll do a short dialgoue on Descartes momentarily. |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 20 2005, 09:44 PM |
| A Dialogue of Skepticism: George H. Smith VS Rene Descartes... Descartes: "Sacre bleu! Smith! I must say zat I have formulated ze brilliant inquiry while meditating in my cabin in my night-shift the other night!" Smith: "Well, do go on." Descartes: "Well, I was thinking, we cannot trust our senses!" Smith: "Why?" Descartes: "Let me demonstrate... look at ze pen." Smith: "It's very nice." Descartes: "Ze pen is straight, non?" Smith: "How do you know it is straight?" Descartes: "No, no, no... I mean, it APPEARS to be straight. See? Feel it. It feels straight. Here, let me put it in ze glass of water..." Smith: "Now it's wet." Descartes: "Do not be cheeky with me, mon ami. Look, down at ze waterline..." Smith: "It looks bent. That's nice." Descartes: "Vell? What about ze contradiction?" Smith: "What contradiction?" Descartes: "We have established zat ze pen is straight but it appears to be bent in ze water! It seems to be straight, zen seems to be bent! How do we know what ze pen really is like?" Smith: "Descartes, do you know the law of noncontradiction? 'A thing cannot have the state x and y at the same time in the SAME MANNER.' You use one modality to show that it is straight, another entirely different modality to prove that it is bent. So yes, the pen is straight and bent, but in DIFFERENT MANNERS. There is no contradiction here, just a perception in two different contexts." Descartes: "But you still cannot trust ze senses to provide accurate knowledge of reality." Smith: "Descartes, what did you just do in your little experiment?" Descartes: "I have shown you using ze glass and ze pen to demonstrate that..." Smith: "Exactly. You have used SENSE DATA as a method to demonstrate that SENSE DATA is flawed. If you must use a modality in a proof, you have committed yourself to the validity of the use of that modality. Using sense data in an experiment to disprove the use of sense data, or using reason to disprove the use of reason, is self-contradictory intellectual hypocrasy. It is akin to a man giving a speech describing why he is a mute. You have uttered nonsense." Descartes: "But zere are numerous examples in life where ze senses have fooled ze mind!" Smith: "Yes, but only because the data was gathered in a flawed modality. Just as in a standard modality one can see that your pen is straight, in DIFFERENT modality one can see that your pen is bent. But it does not show that the senses are flawed, only that the mind must take into account whether an epistemic modality is correctly used." Descartes: "Zen how do you know ANYTHING about the world, hmm?" Smith: "By appealing to more sensory data, of course. We cross-reference, double and triple check our findings and senses. If my wife surprises me with a new car, I would scarcely believe my eyes, but once I double-check by using another sensory modality by touching and feeling, sitting in and smelling the car, I would have confirmed it on multiple levels in ways that seem more and more irrefutable. Just because man is fallible in his inquiries does not mean we should question the inquiry itself. All human fallibility entails is simply the need to be open-minded and willing to correct ourselves if we are shown that we have made a mistake. |
| Posted by: ficino Feb 20 2005, 09:47 PM |
| I'm all atwitter to find out what happens when Queen Christina bursts into the "stove," er, cabin. |
| Posted by: Lanakila Feb 20 2005, 11:23 PM | ||||
Reading De'Cartes led to my deconversion. Of course De'Cartes never did a complete mind dump, but I did, and lost my faith in the process, because its not provable with the facts in evidence. |
| Posted by: Lanakila Feb 20 2005, 11:25 PM | ||||
Speaking of sexual favors??  |
| Posted by: Lokmer Feb 20 2005, 11:51 PM | ||
There are a few fundamental differences between a "presupposition" and an "axiom" or a "first principle." This inconvinient fact is glossed over by people like Van Till, Moreland, Craig, and Plantinga - and done so in a manner that is deliberately intellectually dishonest. An axiom is an undeniable fact of existence - it is obvious to anyone with senses functioning in a biologically correct manner. "I'm breathing" "The sun is out today" and so on. Logical axioms are of a kind with first principles physical axioms, and are posits that are so thoroughly vetted down that there isn't much of a way that one can find a problem with them. Descartes' "Cogito Ergo Sum" is one such axiom, but it is actually a false one, because we now know with advanced neurology that there are beings (such as dolphins) that are aware of "being" but do not engage in what we would call "thought" in a higher-logical sense. So Descartes' first principle can be stripped down even further, which Francis Bacon did by posing the question in the negative. Rather than "What can I be sure of?" which Descartes asked, Bacon asked "Is there anything that cannot be doubted." He arrived at "I cannot doubt that I doubt." THIS is a genuine first principle - knowledge is built on up from there, and the process of constructing reliable knowledge is to buffet it with constant questioning and see what stands up. A "Presupposition" is another animal entirely. It is an assumption made without evidence. The assumption may or may not be true - the important part is that it is assumed before it's claims to truth are evaluated. This, indeed, is the lexical definition of "presuppose" - to suppose before vetting. In philosophy - or law - it takes the form of something supposed "for the sake of argument," to spin a hypothetical, but then once the hypothetical is played out the forces of inquiry are properly turned back on the foundation of that hypothetical to see whether it is a firm foundation or a house of cards. TAG/Presup apologetics (also employed by C.S. Lewis as "The Argument from Reason for the Existence of God") plays a shadow game by spinning a hypothetical on a presupposition, then considering their case proved. In any other field of inquiry, this sort of reasoning would be laughed off the stage, because it violates the entire basis for rational thought. In fact, TAG only works by destroying rational thought in the name of saving it. The universe is reduced to radical subjectivism (a'la Kierkegaard on a serious bender), then is "saved" by an order placed on it from above. Unfortunately the "order" is based on a book that cannot support the weight of those contentions. Presuppers say that the "laws of logic" (more on that stupid phrase in a minute) are emergent characteristics of the nature of God - things such as the "law of non-contradiction." But this is readily proved false, since God acts in a contradictory manner all throughout the Bible, which is filled (even in just the NT) with contradictory doctrines all the while stating the God is "not the author of confusion." Moreover, the OT God prohibits human sacrifice, while in the NT God tricks humans into making a human sacrifice. The character of YHWH is ripe with contradictions, so this argument is ridiculous on it's face. Now, the whole "laws of logic" notion is another deliberate and fallacious category error. The laws of logic do not describe the universe, they describe a method by which we dicipline our minds in order to check our thinking for errors. Our advances in science, technology, and society (and anyone doubting that we have made such advances socially needs to check violent crime figures for primitive societies vs. modern ones) attest to these laws being an accurate abstraction that lines up - most of the time - with reality. By attempting to switch categories and call these laws "transcendent" the TAG proponent is deliberately confusing the issue in order to declare victory by default. Moreover, said proponent ignores the more simple explaination that our nervous systems, being part of nature, are organized along the same lines as the rest of nature, so are fairly likely to perceive the world in a manner that approximates accurate. But, likewise, because of the error and fallability we see in the rest of nature, it is reasonable to conclude that our nervous systems' perceptions and thought processes will be flawed on some level, and this is, indeed, what we find. -Lokmer |
| Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Feb 21 2005, 01:54 AM |
| Unfortunately, we have had so long to ponder these questions that most things have been touched already. I thought about a variation on the Matrix argument (which is really based on a "brains in vats" thought experiment). What if our realities were "nested"? In other words imagine in one interpretation that we created Virtual Reality to escape a reality that was, for us, untenable. After we created such a program to live in we would want to foget the previous instance of reality. Eventually we come across a new limitation in our program and since we had forgotten our origins we would again create a reality to escape to within that reality and so on and so forth, ad infinitum. All of our heirarchial "Gods" would be those running the programs above each layer of reality. Knowledge, reason and natural law could be intentionally lost on us by virtue of being tied-up in paradoxes, black boxes and privilege levels. Under this model, it could be that when we die we graduate up into the next level of the heirarchy. Of course, the model is insufficient, but it might prove an interesting thought experiment. Though as all experiments, I'm sure it's already been treated a greater degree of consideration than I myself could. |
| Posted by: Pseudonym Feb 21 2005, 03:06 AM |
| Reality is a thorny issue in the (Post) modern era; Jean Baudrillard claimed that the world in which we exist and function has become so saturated by what he called "signs" (ideas and synbolic connotations applied to physical objects or experiences that have become more significant or indicative of "Reality" than the physical item itself) that we have no definite basis from which to construct a universal definition of "reality", nor can we be entirely certain that what we percieve is fundamentally "real" in any legitimate sense. Our preconcdeptions of "reality" are based upon our perceptions of our environment, and therefore rely entirely on our sensory array. However, as recorded experiences of certain types of hallucinogenic have proven, those senses can be fooled. It is possible to induce the human body into not only seeing something which is not physically present, but also into tasting, feeling and smelling it too. The item becomes, for all intents and purposes, a "real" object to that person, even if it does not exist in a mutual sense. Take that further; look at the Matrix hypothesis. Fantastic as the cyber-punk setting is, the fundamental philosophy is valid. Society and culture posit themselves as the ultimate truths; that the ideologies on which they are based are fundamentally correct and "real" in an overt sense. This is not so; although both society and culture have a certain physical presence in the form of buildings, monuments, statues, etc, they are no less constructed, and can be de-constructed without much effort. Knowledge leads to questioning; questioning leads to uncertainty; uncertainty leads to dissolution, dissolution leads to reconstruction. The movie Fight Club demonstartes this effect quite admirably. We as societal creatures do not function exclusively or in isolation; even the most solitary of us functions in a personal sense with reference to the ideologies with which we are conditioned from birth. If we can deconstruct and reconstruct our personalities, then we can also do the same with regards to the "realities" we percieve floating around our heads. |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 21 2005, 04:13 AM |
| Hey, can someone post an example of a logical axiom being denied such that it is then reaffirmed? You know, that shows that logical axioms are necessary truths? I've been flipping through my reader, but I couldn't find the one I read before. |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 21 2005, 04:16 AM |
| And hey, ficino, what do you think of the Kantian division between metaphysics and epistemology? Valid? No? |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 21 2005, 05:59 PM |
| You mean like: There is no absolute truth |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 21 2005, 08:55 PM |
| The point of truth isn't absolution, Gerbil. And didn't you just make a statement of absolution there? |
| Posted by: Euthyphro Feb 22 2005, 01:06 AM | ||
Is there such a thing as absolute truth? Lets try and find out by doing our best to just let the facts lead us were they may. Let us build our beliefs and desires on the ever growing picture, which is painted by the facts, while never being afraid to invest in different paints that may or may not destroy the picture. Having to start over does not mean we can not eventually have a better picture. Even if a masterpiece is not possible, we can always improve on the picture that we do have. As far as having Absolute Truth for ourselves ..... If there is a materpiece to be had, would you trust an art dealer who is oh, so very anxious for you to buy his painting? Wouldn't it be better to try and honestly paint your own Masterpiece so that you know that what you do have is not some forgery? |
| Posted by: Kali Aset Feb 22 2005, 01:57 AM |
| Concerning reality, quantum physics has always fascinated me. I'm actually a little surprised that no one has brought it up. I look at the universe as a state of continual possibility; there are an infinite number of possibilities until a human being decides on one and locks it down. The particles and subparticles of an atom do ultra bizarre things like going forward in backward in time, jumping vast (seemingly impossible) distances, and being in two places at once. But we humans cannot scientifically observe these instances impartially because the very act of observing plus our own expectations inevitably changes the outcome of the experiment. I was always extremely comforted by this, because growing up you are taught that certain laws of physics (like gravity) are parameters of human existence that cannot be broken. Quantum physics teaches you that it's bullshit. Anything is possible, and often our realities are exactly what we expect them to be. One great model for reality is something called the "Holographic Paradigm." Has anyone here heard of it? It was concocted by a physicist named David Bohm, and hinges on an experiment that proved that subatomic particles can instantaneously communicate with each other, no matter the distance involved, which at times is faster than the speed of light. Bohm asserts that our universe is actually a hologram, and that all parts of the hologram are actually smaller and smaller wholes. He states that objective reality is an illusion, or "maya" and that our brains actually act like receivers to extract frequencies and transform them into sensations and experiences. It really gets pretty wild, but it explains many of the mysteries of our universe and allows for a radical view about reality in general. For anyone who is interested, this is the full article. VERY cool stuff. http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html |
| Posted by: Euthyphro Feb 22 2005, 02:11 AM | ||
Thanks Kali! This is very interesting. I never read up on quantum mechanics. But how is it that "anything is possible?" Through technology only? Or other things besides technology? Thanks for the link! |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 22 2005, 05:46 AM |
| I think quantum physics is interesting, but too often people use it to try to make a case for dualism. It doesn't make a case at all for deconstructing materialism, as whatever "will" we have to impose on quantum reality to collapse it into a finite state is still contingent on the quantum world. Interesting stuff, though, and certainly philosophy needs to keep up with scientific discovery. |
| Posted by: ficino Feb 22 2005, 08:14 AM |
| Hey Spooky, re: Kant, metaphysics and epistemology: For right now I think it's valid to divide philosophy into branches according to the questions that are asked. As far as my understanding of Kant goes, I don't think he admitted that a general metaphysic is possible. As I recall, he did say that we can make synthetic, a priori judgments about the matters of natural science by reasoning from experience, as our mind organizes it, to properties of things of which we have experiences. That's the point where Schopenhauer criticized Kant: the world for S. just is "Vorstellung," which I think of as all the stuff on my mental screen. My mind is the screen. There's no way to get from the screen and the images going by on it to the "reality" of which the images are representations. But that's OK - I experience my world as an ordered system, and causality works. For Schopenhauer the absolute that stands behind our experience can't be known in itself, but he tended to talk about it as though it is unitary. Sometimes quotations from people who talk about quantum stuff remind me of Schopenhauer. There's no point in dualism for Schopenhauer, though. I tend to think of transcendental philosophy as going from a base of Kant/Schopenhauer, sort of the way Neoplatonism goes from a base that was Plato/Aristotle. Right now my belief about metaphysics as a branch of philosophy is that it is the investigation of the way we talk about "to be." I'm looking forward to having time to sit down with your lecture #4. Good luck on microbiology - I presume you're not neglecting your coursework. (I am neglected cleaning the kitchen floor right now. Why can't I be at work doing something relaxing like fielding phone calls from irates?) |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 22 2005, 08:35 AM |
| Nah, I'm at that point of "study nirvana" now, where the walls of crushing despair and failure look and I think "Wow... I just don't care..." Greatest sense of inner peace ever. Yeah, Kant didn't just admit that metaphysics isn't possible, he demolished metaphysics entirely. Some try to pick up the pieces, but I'm happy with just an epistemic/phenomenological model. I'm afraid all I know of Schopenhaur is "the Will." I'm trying to study some Kierkegaard right now, because from what I know of him, if he supports the blatant subjectivism I think he does, I may need to address it if it comes up in class. |
| Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Feb 22 2005, 12:07 PM | ||||
There are huge differences there MG. Why are you treating them as the same? Anything can be inserted where you have typed G_d. Take your pick...even a brick will work. You have to recognize the difference...awww...what the heck am I asking of gerbil. |
| Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Feb 22 2005, 12:16 PM | ||
Hey gerbil...there is that difference. Et. al of course. |
| Posted by: tete de merde Feb 22 2005, 04:27 PM | ||
Perhaps the clearest example is the law of non-contradiction. It follows from the LoNC that A is either true or false. Thus, to claim the exclusive falsity of the LoNC is to implicitly affirm that it is not also true. |
| Posted by: ficino Feb 22 2005, 04:51 PM |
| There have been so many postings about presuppositions of late that it's hard to track them. Mad_Gerbil, I sent you a long reply. Have you seen it? |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 22 2005, 04:54 PM | ||||
That rebuttle presumes that: 1: G_d is unknowable. (not true) 2: Logic is something completely apart from belief. (it definitely isn't) 3: Previous experiences are to be excluded. (anything to win, I guess) 4: Biblical testimony is to be excluded. In short -- it presupposes that the empirical method is the only appropriate way to find truth, casts the question in a manner that can only be answered by the assumed method, and then declares victory. I'm used to thinking being this circular in fundamentalist circles -- I didn't expect it here. |
| Posted by: Cerise Feb 22 2005, 04:56 PM |
| Gerbil, I find a problem with your assertions. You say that knowing God is not impossible and yet I am quite certain I have heard from you, on other occassions, telling me that we cannot expect to understand God because we are mortal creatures so unlike a deity. I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you can know God or you can't. Which is it? |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 22 2005, 04:57 PM | ||
Knowing someone is different than comprehending them. I know you, but I don't comprehend you. |
| Posted by: Cerise Feb 22 2005, 04:59 PM |
| Actually, I think knowing and comprehension are the same thing. If you cannot comprehend me, then you don't truly know me Gerbil. You may think you know something about me, but you do not know me. Knowing my name or my sex or my shoe size does not mean that you know me. I think it might be the same with God. |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 22 2005, 05:07 PM | ||||||||
I thought the traditional definition of God was that he was unknowable. You know, Isaiah 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
What EXACTLY do you mean by that? Are you saying that logic is subjective? Unjustified? Contingent? What? Because Logic IS objective, justified, and necessary. I'm looking for that necessary root of logic thing again.
Clear this up for me please. What EXACTLY do you mean by this?
Only if it hasn't been established as a source of reliable, objective knowledge. Given how Christians interpret the Bible to fit in with the culture at the given time, I find it to be questionable (i.e. Use of bible passages to support slavery/misogyny). It is also historically inaccurate and many passages open to interpretation and confirmation bias. |
| Posted by: ficino Feb 22 2005, 05:12 PM |
| Hey, M_G and Cerise. Sorry to be sort of troublesome. As you point out, there's a big difference between understanding and knowledge, especially knowledge by acquaintance. I would add my opinion that understanding is of systems of things. Knowledge by acquaintance is of individuals. Bertrand Russell made important distinctions among cognitive terms in his Problems of Philosophy, an early, important work, and much has been done on it since. You see the difference supported in ancient Greek. Greek really doesn't use "epistamai," "I ahve scientific knowledge" or "I understand" or "I know how to" of knowing individuals except in one place in the Theaetetus, where Socrates and Theaetetus are trying to define "episteme" (scientific knowledge/understanding). When Greeks talked of knowing a person, even God, they tended to use a different verb, "gnonai." So I agree when you talk of knowing someone but not comprehending that person. I am not clear what you mean by "comprehend" a person. I guess that's the issue, especially about God. Some theologians were called "apophatic" because they denied any positive statement can be made about God; you can only say what he is not. To me this is why I can no longer deal with "God talk." OK, just thought I'd push my opinion into the mix. Cheers, |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 22 2005, 05:31 PM | ||
You sure like them Greeks, don't you, ficino?
I like how Smith interpreted this... Atheist: "What is God?" Theist: "I can't say. I can only say what he is not." Atheist: "Then what do you believe in?" Theist: "I can't say exactly." Atheist: "Then how does your belief differ from no belief whatsoever?" |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 22 2005, 05:32 PM | ||||||||||||
The Bible speaks much of G_d revealing Himself to us. Don't confuse 'understanding all the motivations/thoughts' of G_d with knowing G_d.
I do not know my wife will NOT be found in bed with my neighbor when I get home tomorrow. I believe her to be faithful; however, because that is consistent with her behavior up until this point. My belief in her is very logical. Logic is not opposed to belief -- they work in concert.
You analyzed the example I gave independent of other factors. Each situation has a history -- your claims that logic made the medical answer the most logical is because there was no history presented. For example, if I put a stranger in a room and asked you if you think that stranger would prefer $10,000.00 or a boot in the arse you'd logically chose $10,000.00. However, after showing you the patients mental wellness file you might realize my assertion that he'd rather have the boot in the arse isn't off base after all. Of course, the example I gave didn't a history -- you actually responded logically, given the senerio I presented. |
| Posted by: Cerise Feb 22 2005, 05:36 PM | ||
How about understanding any motivations/thoughts of God? Can you truly say you understand even one thing for certain about your God that you have a relationship with? I am satisfied that I can never completely know anyone, including a deity, but to not know anything and still try to establish a working relationship...forgive me, but it seems ridiculous. |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 22 2005, 05:37 PM | ||
Gerbil, you DO know the difference between the layman's term "logic" and philosophical formal logic, right? This has nothing at all to do with the argument. EDIT: Your example is one of inductive judgement, which is ENTIRELY different from deductive judgements. |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 22 2005, 05:38 PM |
| Gerbil, out of curiosity, how much experience do you have in reading and writing formal philosophy papers? |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 22 2005, 05:41 PM | ||
None. |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 22 2005, 05:46 PM |
| Here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic I haven't taken a formal logic course myself (yet!) but I have read Ayer's "The A Priori." I'm trying to freshen up on it again myself. He makes a pretty strong case, but like all logical positivists you gotta take his claims with a grain of salt. Not in the veracity of his argument, just in that the movement was a bit of a failure because they tried to resurrect Hume's Fork. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 22 2005, 05:50 PM | ||
Thanks for the link. I wish I had time to be a philosophy major -- hehehe... unfortunately, I have to make a living too. I had a course in logic in college (easily one of my favorite courses) so I know the difference between formal logic and 'reasons I did it'. I'll remember in the future that you are operating from a strict logic framework and be more careful in my responses. |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 22 2005, 06:38 PM |
| Harr! You may just be ahead of me in a couple spots then! Of course, the classes here at Berkeley are pretty damn good... so the stuff I learned in CogSci1 may be sufficient. Overall, though, I do want to get a degree in philosophy (up to a Masters, if I can) but I had to specialize in Cognitive Neurobiology instead of Cognitive Philosophy, just out of practicality. When I do teach that class I'll also have to make sure to use my terms carefully. "Valid," "rational," and "reasonable" all have very specific definitions in the context of philosophy. |
| Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Feb 23 2005, 10:55 AM | ||||||
You are still missing the distinction MG. No, logic is not opposed to belief, but it is opposed to faith. What if you had just met your wife the same day you married her? Would it still be logical for you to believe that she won't be in bed with your neighbor? You are capable of making rational claims because you state this:
You would have to have faith to claim that you are sure that a person that you just met would not cheat on you.
Indeed, every situation has a history. I don't see how you can say the medical answer has no history when it can be repeated with the same results. So, is it logical for you to believe that god is good? What history is there between you and god that will enlighten me? Is it accessible for anyone that seeks knowledge to be able to reach that same conclusion? How is it possible to 'know' your god? Is it possible to repeat the study and come to the same conclusion without just making things up? |
| Posted by: Lokmer Feb 23 2005, 11:31 AM | ||
I don't know about this, NBBTB. I've been thinking a lot recently about the concept of "faith" and I've come to the (tentative) conclusion that religious "faith" isn't really faith at all. It's acceptance of authority. That's fideism - faith to a doctrine. A very peculiar kind of faith that's not terribly spiritual. "Faith" of a spiritual sort, on the other hand, is something I'm becoming convinced is central to the concept of wholeness as a person. It's a kind of trust - in your own instincts, in other people, in truth - that fills in the gaps between what reason can do at a given moment and what life requires. Some very liberal/mystical religious folks have this kind of faith, but too often at the expense of reason. But in tandem with reason, this sort of faith keeps me going in times when reason shows me a hopeless world. I really like the definition of faith put forth by J. Michael Straczynski "Faith requires only that we surrender ourselves to the possibility of hope." Most religious folks find this kind of faith - which isn't directed towards a creed or even necessarily toward a god - to be anemic. But I find it to be quite radical on an existential level. And for this kind of faith, it's true that "Faith and Reason are like the shoes on your feet - you can go farther with both than just one." The difference between this and fideism is that faith is not a way to *know* things. It's a way to *be* - it's an experiential, existential thing. It's not an epistemological tool. Or am I just totally out to lunch?  -Lokmer |
| Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Feb 23 2005, 12:11 PM | ||||||||
Hi Lok! You raise some interesting points (as usual). If they have faith in a specific set of written rules, then it is faith in a doctrine and that doctrine and all their belief's are inclusively authoritarian.
I understand what you are saying Lok and do agree that it is important, and healthy, to a person to have hope in themselves and trusting people in general, but this must still be based on some kind of knowledge of people in general. I am speaking more of blind faith. People that foolishly have faith in the impossible with no realistic justification for doing so. I probably didn't give a good example to MG with the new wife scenario, because it would be possible to check and see if she would be trustworthy...so my apologies to MG. I would have to still say though that when one hopes for something, they are basing their expectations on things that could possibly happen based on their knowledge base. If one has faith in themselves, they are really only hoping for something they are capable of. They may not know it, but surely it is within their physical abilities. Would it rational for a person to hope to grow legs after have them amputated? I don't think one could possibly hope for the impossible with reason. We can hope for medical advancements that will cure diseases because this has been known to happen, but not to hope for the impossible. One can 'Dream the Impossible Dream', after all, if we were not capable of dreaming, from whence would come inspiration? I know the line is fuzzy, but I feel the distinction is important.
I can agree that faith is not a way to know things. I think it is fine for a person to believe in themselves within limitations. It's okay to let one's imagination soar...there is nothing bad about that. The problem starts when one starts to let their imagination work its way into their knowledge base...when they start thinking it is real. I love fantasy and often wonder what it would be like *sigh*, but I don't have faith that it is real. I might believe that it will do me good to let my mind have fun once in awhile because it's healthy to imagine things, through meditation, books, day-dreams, poetry, etc. But, one (IMO) should be able to come back to reality when they're done. You are never out to lunch and you are always very insightful. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 23 2005, 02:30 PM |
| Lok and NBBTB: I'm still working out the details to this -- bits and pieces are coming together from different sources so you'll have to forgive my sloppiness. I see my life and beliefs as based upon several things: 1: Reason 2: Logic 3: Faith 4: Experience 5: Aesthetics 6: Emotion You'll have to forgive me, because undoubtedly some of these things overlap or are redundant. Furthermore, much of this is likely a result of being a believer and will likely not be attractive to an unbeliever trying to work from the ground up to my current position or an understanding thereof. So when I approach the question of G_d I exercise all of the items in the list -- no one item is the exclusive tool by which the question of G_d is analyzed. This is one reason why we talk past each other alot -- I don't accept the working premise of most here -- that being that the empirical method is the only way to acquire truth -- or even the primary method. #6 has been affected slightly by The G_d Gene. While a rationalist would read the book and perhaps write off religious euphoria as a purely mechanical thing fit for disposal -- my reading (most of the book so far) translates it into a cautionary note to make sure I don't over emphasis this truth detection mechanism. Any one of these mechanisms is insufficient in and of itself, IMHO. Most here live like that is the case, despite their words that claim otherwise. |
| Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Feb 23 2005, 02:39 PM |
| Fair enough...the only one I disagree with is, you ready?...#3. I bet you couldn't have guessed that. I can see how being spiritual is good for the mind (see Lok's post), but not having faith in something unknowable. (I know you disagree, but you can't show me otherwise) But, when searching for the truth, faith only clouds your judgment and takes away needed mental capacity. I don't allow faeries to tell me where I should look for the truth, why should I allow god? (Those damn faeries try all the time though!)  |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 23 2005, 05:24 PM | ||
Don't have much time to pick up any new books. Do you think that you can outline the main point for me? Hate to break it to you, but there's quite a few science books are written by people who have no idea what they're talking about. Generally the best ones reliably trace their data to primary sources. I'm very skeptical about the concept of a "God Gene" as well as its relevance in survival potential in the context of modern society. You have to remember that even if a God Gene existed that directed one to order events in more spiritual terms rather than logical ones, and even if it has the potential to grant a degree of emotional well-being, there is one huge rule in evolutionary biology... *A lot of evolution is all about trade-offs.* So while there may be a psychological benefit to a "God Gene" (again, if it existed), the trade-off is the ability to comprehend, order, and understand events in a logical manner. May be good for the individual in the short term, but it has the potential to be disastrous in the long run to the individual as well as the society. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 23 2005, 05:41 PM |
| Mr. Spooky: The author admits the book title is a bit sensationalistic since genes typically act in concert with many other genes. His basic thesis seems to be that there is a gene (or combination of genes) that cause some people to have a disposition towards transcendence (or feelings thereof). He finds this gene in people of every religious stripe -- even the atheistic religions such as Buddhism. Probably similar to genes for homosexuality or alchoholism -- that is to say that people with those genes don't have to be that way, rather, they have a disposition or tendency. He feels the gene is selected for by evolution because religious people have a tendency to see value in life, have hope, and are more likely to be optimistic enough to reproduce... etc. |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 23 2005, 05:42 PM | ||
What EXACTLY do you mean by "truth?" |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 23 2005, 05:43 PM | ||||
Truth: What is actual. |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 23 2005, 06:00 PM |
| You're going to have to elaborate on that, MG. Noumenal? Phenomenal? What about consistency? The definition of "truth" is huge matter that has been explored and expanded on for centuries. Huge. Descartes thought there was no "truth" at first because there was no absolution (unless God existed, but his proof was not only flawed in its ontological use, the Cartesian Circular Argument gave a huge hit as well). This is what this entire thread has been about. Kant helped eliminate this problem with his Noumenal VS Phenomenal distinction, which renders your defintion of "truth" to be very questionable in its answerability and applicability. I know Schopenhaur has been mentioned, but I only know his perception of the Noumenal "will" opposed Kant's "sublime." The Pragmatists such as Pierce and James argued that "truth" was in behavior (ah, the Behaviorist revolution...). The Logical Positivists argued that "truth" lay in either definition or in empiricism, thereby ressurecting Hume's Fork, but these guys proved to have several large holes in their theory. The Postmodernists assert that the nature of truth lies in the nature of language, especially because a lot of crappy theories were contructed using muddy language. Ayn Rand argued that "truth" lay in how it was constructed and justified within a given context. Smith corrected Rand by saying that "truth" must not only be justified, it must be "true" (he has a separate definition of what is "true," but I don't remember exactly). THIS is the scope of epistemology... to find out what EXACTLY "truth" means and how it applies to humankind. Answering with "truth: what is actual" is only rephrasing the problem. What IS actual? What IS objective? If you don't know what truth is EXACTLY, you're building an edifice without a foundation. And I'd hate to pull a G.E. Moore, but if by "truth" you do not mean EXACTLY anything, you fall under great suspicion of not meaning anything at all. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 23 2005, 06:29 PM |
| Mr. Spooky: Perhaps the concept of truth is too simple for a philosopher to understand.  |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 23 2005, 06:42 PM |
| No, MG, it's just that your definition is UNINTELLIGIBLE. If you mean by truth "what is actual," what EXACTLY do you mean by "actual?" Do you mean something that is expemplified in reality? And if that, what do you mean by "reality?" There are some terms that exist where we can agree upon the definition, crude as it may be, to represent what we think. However, "reality" and "truth" are very abstract terms. I mean, look at the very beginning post of this thread! This was a genuine problem that philosophers had to tackle, and in some ways it was solved, some ways it was dissolved, but in all, the problem can be solved... "truth is what is actual" ignores the problem... it doesn't address it. "Truth" doesn't just mean any old idea that floats around. It has to be somehow grounded, objective (that is, not contingent or at least minimally contingent upon another being's individual hidden preferences and will such that the given idea can be agreed upon by all parties due to the nature of mind of human beings), justified (deductively or inductively given by previous idea elements), and singularly defined (such that a single best conclusion can be derived). There is a huge history of exploration into the nature of truth. Don't dismiss it so easily. |
| Posted by: Diogenes Feb 23 2005, 06:48 PM |
| Possibly inane question to those more knowledgable here than I (which is everyone who's posted in this thread) from a philosophy neophyte: In epistemological terms, can you 'know' a falsehood? Are truth and knowledge separate? |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 23 2005, 06:55 PM |
| Mr. Spooky: It isn't my intent to dismiss it easily -- but I also refuse to educate myself to idiocy. (I'm not saying you do that). ------------------------------------------ Assuming you have a girlfriend let us make up a hypothetical wherein you find love letters to her and from her directed at a third party. You also find other evidence (very convincing evidence) that she has been cheating on you. She arrives home from work and you demand that she tell you the truth. She then launches into an entire "But what is truth, exactly?" spiel. "Well dear, I would tell you the truth but I'm not sure what truth is anymore." "Do you want my truth, or your truth? How should I package this truth?" You'd find that response insulting, I'm sure. -------------------------------------------- This brings me to something I've learned in this thread in regards to pain. I now understand why pain and suffering must exist. Just like a hot stove convinces one to quickly remove one's hand even so pain causes people to spend less time wandering around in philosophical mazes and more time getting down to business about things such as 'truth'. Like in the example I gave above, there is nothing like a compromising photograph of your girlfriend with another guy to render 10,000 years of trying to define truth down to a simple "Yes" or "No" answer to a very direct question. |
| Posted by: tete de merde Feb 23 2005, 06:59 PM | ||||
I wish the debate about homosexuality vis-a-vis heritability was approached with more perspective. Obviously, to engage in homosexual sex is, by any account, a voluntary act, and is thus able to be avoided. Being homosexual, however, is a matter of orientation - to which set of genitals one is attracted - and is decidedly not within the realm of mere choice. A genetic component to sexual orientation then, is considerably more deterministic than a "disposition" or "tendency."
If you correctly represent him, then both of you probably have it backwards. Genes that promote the behaviors you mention will be selected for because they promote the behaviors themselves, not because they produce a particular mental phenomenon that has those behaviors as side-effects. If anything, being religious is a phenotypic side-effect of a genome that (in a roundabout way) codes for those beneficial behaviors. |
| Posted by: ficino Feb 23 2005, 07:11 PM |
| Hi guys. I always thought it was fairly simple to start with the notion that truth and falsity are properties, not of things, but of propositions. Plato tended to talk of things as true or false, i.e. as having more or less reality or Being, but modern logicians cut away that view of logic as unworkable. We can judge some propositions as true because they resolve into tautologies. Bertrand Russell gave mathematical propositions as examples of this class. Russell went on to say that other propositions we judge as true by verifying them with evidence of the senses. There are huge discussions of the conditions under which we can have confidence we've done this. I'm not going to open all that up again. Years ago when I was an undergraduate, a theology prof from a local seminary came to address our Christian group. He talked about the above and then quoted Jesus as saying "I am the truth, the way and the life." He said, in the NT, truth is not so much a property of propositions as a "sphere" in which one lives. I think he meant that the NT presents truth as a realm of ultimate significance, in which we think we live our lives, or something like that. This gets too fuzzy for me to do anything with. Either the propositions of Christianity are true or false or they're not propositions but some other kinds of utterances. |
| Posted by: tete de merde Feb 23 2005, 07:23 PM | ||
It depends on the definition of "knowledge." A common, but flawed, usage is "justified, true belief." Accordingly, a falsehood cannot be known because, while it may be believed, it is not true. It is understood, however, that JTB is an incorrect or incomplete definition. It has been shown via thought experiment that the three criteria for JTB: 1) X is true 2) A believes that X 3) A is justified in believing that X can all be satisfied by A being correct by coincidence. This is known as the http://polywog.navpoint.com/philosophy/epistemology/gettier_prob/ Personally, I am satisfied that knowledge and truth are correlated, yet not identical. Solutions to the Gettier Problem continue to be sought, of course. |
| Posted by: Euthyphro Feb 23 2005, 07:56 PM |
| How is it, that more often than not, Scientists, and craftsmen are in agreement when religionists more often than not disagree with eachother. (30,000 +......Christian Denominations.) It seems to me it is empiricle evidences are what keeps us all on the same page more often than not. With religion most people are not on the same page, they all point their fingers at eachother saying, "You are wrong, and I am right about Higher Power(s). Religion is not a knowlege that keeps everyone on the same page, so it is not practical. Empiricism is vastly superior to Faith. Faith is a worthless "knowing." Even I admit my God belief could be a mild form of schizophrenia. I could be mildly looney toones. But I don't think so. hehe. Still I don't expect others to believe in a Higher Power, because I have no proof for them. STOP LOOKING AT MY AVATAR! STOP IT! |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 23 2005, 08:12 PM |
| Gerbil, please understand that I don't mean it to be harsh when I say this, but I have to be direct. My problem is that your understanding of "truth" is simplistic and the problems that you percieve in "knowledge" are easily addressed. My problem is also that you present problems, but don't seem to care about the answers. If someone wants to know how deep down how a computer processor works, he has no right to complain because it is difficult. If he chooses to ignore the specifics and work on his own in detail using the limited knowledge he has, he has no right to moan when he encounters technical problems of his own devising. If you want to be serious about knowing truth from falsehood, you're going to have to be a little acquainted with epistemology, which means reading just a little of Descartes, a bit of Hume and Kant, and maybe a few select others who have explored the problem thoroughly. If you don't, you're little more than a kid in a garage trying to build a time machine out of cardboard boxes with the assumption that it'll work. Yes, we DO have a model for knowledge, yes it IS simple. Is it perfect? No, but it is always under refinement to always improve. The only corallary is that it is abstract. Knowledge must have the following properties: 1) It is justified. If there we no evidence for a knowledge element to tie it down to an objective reality (i.e. deductive or empirical proof), it fails to be of objective use. 2) It does not contradict any other data we have at hand. It is inevitable that we will encounter contradictions, the function of intelligence is to examine what mistake we made so that we know WHY those contradictions occured and how it can be remedied. 3) It is objective. If it is subjective, there is no longer any distinction between truth and falsehood. 4) It is epistemic in nature, not metaphysical. It is impossible to know the "things-in-themselves," that is, it is impossible to know what is "actual," the true nature external to the fallible human mind. Only perfection can entail such knowledge, and if knowledge is defined to be metaphysical/perfect, the only result is solipsism and intellectual hypocrasy. This final point is my huge qualm with your definition of "truth." |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 23 2005, 08:16 PM |
| Final point: If the topic addresses a specific, low-level idea, you're going to have to work in specific, low-level concepts. |
| Posted by: Lokmer Feb 24 2005, 03:46 AM | ||
| Listening to Spooky and MG going round and round about the definition of "truth" reminds me of a glorious little passage from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "It is often said that a disproportionate obsession with purely academic or abstract matters indicates a retreat from the problems of real life. However, most of the people engaged in such matters say that this attitude is based on three things: ignorance, stupidity, and nothing else. Philosophers, for example, argue that they are very much concerned with the problems posed by real life. Like, for instance, “what do we mean by real?”, and “how can we reach an empirical definition of life?”, and so on." -HHGG radio series, Episode 10 ----- But seriously, Gerbil, you're missing a fundamentally important category distinction that Spooky is making and thereore talking past each other. Indeed, without knowing it you are relying on a particular subspecies of Scottish Common Sense Realism with a bit of Objectivism thrown in for good measure, but because you don't know this you are talking past Spooky and/or throwing his very valid objections to your epistemology out the window as irrelevant. As Spooky said:
-Lokmer |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 24 2005, 07:51 AM |
| Gerbil, I feel like I should apologize. My intent wasn't to badger or belittle you, or talk over your head. I know that you haven't studied philosophy much, so I guess I have no right to be frustrated when you put together things that are problematic. However, I do maintain that there ARE some very important events and questions in the history of epistemology and its relationship with metaphysics, and a definition of "knowledge" has to take these into account. *How can we be sure that our beliefs directly correlate with reality external to our senses? (Descartes) *How can certain elemental beliefs that form the foundation of knowledge (matter exists, causality exists) be justified? (Berkeley/Hume) *Since knowledge is based on personal experiences and values, isn't knowledge and logic all just all subjective? (Kierkegaard, if I am interpreting him correctly. Probably not) It's certainly practical to just ignore these in standard life and standard discourse, but philosophy is not a realm of standard life or discourse. It is the attempt to examine the low-level foundations of the human condition, and to try to base those ideas on elements such that it becomes as objective and as intelligible as possible. It addresses and corrects these problems instead of ignoring or overlooking them. Standard thought is like baking a cake with store-bought mix, philosophical thought is making it from scratch. Difficult? Yes. Troublesome? Yes. But potentially far more delicious, deeper in content, and more grounded in truth. This is why before you can rattle off what tools you use to acquire knowledge, you have to sit back and think "what is knowledge?" and "what do each of these tools individually entail?" If problems come up because of your definitions, you will have to refine your definitions to take them into account. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 24 2005, 02:20 PM |
| Mr. Spooky: You weren't the least bit offensive, probably because I feared offending you all the more. I don't intend to dismiss your thoughtful posts -- I acknowledge you have substantive material there. That being said, I think sometimes people lose the ability to see the forest for the trees. Perhaps this example will help: A common objection to G_d (as Christians understand Him) is that the Israelites were ordered to wipe out entire cities. The objection to children being slain is a powerful objection for anyone who actually thinks about the matter. The Christian response often delves into the original Hebrew or perhaps makes appeals to G_d's justice, mercy, and handling of things in the afterlife. While I would hold that it is true that justice, mercy, and love -- along with destruction can exist coherently within the same G_d anyone is going to have a headache after reading through these kinds of explanations. (the people here would also have a truckload of objections) Lately, my response to these sorts of objections has been "perhaps G_d is dangerous". While that statement is a gross over simplification it occurs to me that it is also very true. In the process of trying to apologize away the slaughters of the OT perhaps the real message is getting lost -- G_d is dangerous. In short, when it comes to things like 'truth' I fear that often people bury their heads so far into the philosophical sand that the end result is sophistry instead of something useable. The quest becomes a search for complexity and high sounding rhetoric instead of something usable. A life time is spent trying to define a flower instead of merely enjoying a flower. Again, I'm not saying you are guilty of that -- just so you know I'm not trying to defend being a lazy simpleton -- but I want to 'keep it real' as the saying goes. |
| Posted by: MrSpooky Feb 24 2005, 08:53 PM | ||
I understand this, but you must remember that when debating on a very low level (such as the root of how we get our ideas and why they are classified as facts) you have to get into specifics, which is why I personally don't care to debate scripture. Aside from its reliability being unsupported for me, there are others far more experienced at that than me, and I don't yet have the experience to do a proper inquiry or critique. I will heavily criticize any argument that bases itself on faulty premises, because faulty premises generate horrible ideas. And sadly, epistemology is THE FOUNDATION for everything. EVERYTHING. Every idea you have, every word you speak, everything you express as "knowledge" (as opposed to simpler, individual opinion) must be justified through epistemology (the study of knowledge itself). This is best learned not through metaphysics, but metaphysical CRITICISM. There's been a lot of crazy junk that philosophers of old have put out (the grandiose claims of Speculative Metaphysics) and this is due entirely to the fact that they didn't know what the relationship was between the "real" and the "rational." So you have an idea that you found with your epistemic model? Great. But is your epistemic foundation reliable? How does it account for the classic problems of metaphysics? Does it exempt some higher-level ideas from its own inquiry? Why? Epistemology itself has recently been analyzed even further via the Philosophy of Language and the Philosophy of Mind, so we're getting ever deeper into the topic. But anyways, yes, you have an idea about existence. However, your understanding of existence as I've seen it has been of the same flavor that caused philosophers to argue that "matter does not exist" or push forward into solipsism. Your epistemic model may be perfectly functional in real life, but if you're going to speak of higher levels of reality, you're going to have to understand the lower levels of knowledge. |