Let’s just assume that you are doing something genuine and worthwhile and leave it at that. 
:
Meaning that [perhaps] we should not leave it at that at all? Anyway, the dilemma embedded in dasein [as I see it above] is there for you [or any other moral objectivist] to deconstruct. Both philosophically and for all practical purposes.
And I can only stress again how a part of me yearns to bump into someone who actually can. You know, make it go away.
Trust me: It can be a truly [u][b]grim[/u][/b] manner in which to view these things.
Again, you assert this. As though to suggest that how you think about the use of language reflects the way any rational man or woman ought to think about it. As though the manner in which I think about it is somehow “wrong” because it is not the way that you think about it. Which is to say that [in my view] you reduce the extraordinary complexity of language [as it is actually used “out in the world”] down to your own point view. As though it were something analogous to mathematics or the laws of physics.
For me, however, the language that any particular individual uses “out in the world with others” can either express something that is true for all of us, or it is embedded [at least in part] in the subjective interpretation of any particular thing or relationship. And that certainly seems reasonable with respect to God and religion. It is the difference between saying “I am a Christian” – when in fact you are – and “every rational man and woman must be a Christian” – which is just your own subjective point of view.
Now, you may argue that language can be precise with respect to both, but that merely emphasizes the manner in which we think about this relationship differently. One either is or is not a Christian. But how does one go about demonstrating objectively that all rational men and women must be?
True, “John is a bachelor” is bereft of context. But if John is a bachelor that is an objective fact. But suppose someone argues that, in being a bachelor, John is being immoral…or is not living in accordence with the will of [any particular] God? How is that established as in fact true objectively?
This is the distinction that I always make regarding the use of words out in the world.
Now I am confused again. With respect to the biology of pregnancy and abortion, one truth fits all. It is what it is. It’s not just a matter of one’s personal opinion. But it is precisely the contradictory perspectives regarding the morality of abortion [rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy] that [to me] renders deontological ethics impotent. In other words, “for all practical purposes”.
Or so it seems to me unless and until someone demonstrates to me that this is not a rational manner in which think about it.
As I have noted, that is not the presumption I make at all. All I can attest to is that you have not managed to convince me that you can. I would never argue that the objective truth regarding the morality of abortion does not exist. And it may well be embedded in the existence of a particular God. But I do not believe in God. And I believe morality is embedded instead in the dilemma that seems [to me] inherent in dasein and conflicting goods.
So, I can then assume that when you tell me that I am “confused” or “mistaken”, you are expressing only a personal opinion derived from the assumptions [premises] you have accummulated with respect to these relsationships? You are acknowledging that it may well be you who are confused and mistaken?
Okay, we can leave it that then.
But sooner or later a religion either brings its theological assumptions [its abstract concepts/constructs] down to earth – pertaining to conflicting value judgments precipitating conflicting begaviors – or it does not. And it then links “down here” and “up there” – pertaining to immortality and salvation – or it does not.
If it does not then [to me] it becomes basically another academic exercise entangled abstractly in a scholastic pursuit of a particular set of priori deductions and definitions.
Which in all honesty I am not nearly as much interested in.
As for the distinction made between religion and science on the one hand and philosophy on the other, my argument is that the tools of philosophy are of limited use with respect to dasein and conflicting goods. Reason and logic and epistemology can only penetrate so far here. For example, if we are faced with the dilemma of living in a world where no babies are aborted then that means living in a world where some women will be forced to give birth against their will. What then can the tools of philosophy do to make these conflicting goods go away? And how can they obviate the fact that individual perspectives on the morality of abortion are rooted in dasein? And in the historical reality of political economy – with respect to how political power will play a role with regard to enforcing rules of behavior?
Two points.
I suspect that there are other scholars out there who view these relationships different from you. And I supsect that they too would argue that they are 100% certain of the asumptions they use to derive their conclusions.
But, so much more to the point [mine], there are folks “out in the world that we live in” who hold entirely different beliefs about entirely different Gods…and share entirely different value judgments regarding any number of human behaviors. And, based on my many years of experience as a political activist, I can assure you that lots and lots and lots of them claimed to be 100% certain about their own moral and political agendas. And their own religious convictions. That, in fact, is the world we live it. It is bursting at the seams with conflict.
How then are you not just one more person who has, is or will write a book examining and then delineating these relationships as they [allegedly] are said to really be?
And then, basically, you are telling me that, in regards to this exhange, the “hard physical or scientific” evidence will not be forthcoming until the book comes out. Instead, you wish to focus purely on philosophical issues. But how does that not just limit me to reacting to your definitions and deductions? Things you believe “in your head” to be true because your conclusions are derived from your assumptions/premises – and not derived from any substantiave/substantial empirical evidence?
Perhaps then we should just put this exchange on hold until you are willing and able to integrate your philosophical speculations into the world of conflicting value judgments – judgments that are in turn linked to our post-mortem fate.
Here though [again for me] this exchange with you is not all that different from the exchanges I have had with James.
I do answer your questions. I do answer them to the best of my ability. But [apparently] they are not the answers you want [or would have given yourself] and so, therefore, I am avoiding the questions.
However, to me, this is the difference between asking a medical doctor how she performs an abortion [and her giving you an answer that is true 100%] and asking an ethicist how she is 100% certain that the abortion is either moral or immoral. Or asking someone if he is 100% certain that he believes in the Christian God…and asking him if he is 100% certain that he can prove the actual existence of this God.
A “methodolgy” for me is relevant to the extent that I can at least imagine its existential use and exchange value with respect to actual human interactions. Interactions that revolve around identity, values and political/economic power. That is simply how I think about this relationship between words and worlds. And to the extent a “serious philosopher” keeps putting that relationship on hold is the extent to which I begin to wonder wonder if he or she has any accummulating evidence to close the gap between theory and practice.
You make these distinctions but I truly do not understand the point. The desert does exist. The hills do exist. There is either snow falling in the hills or there is not. I would never insist that someone prove to me that snow does fall in the hills before going with with her to find out myself.
And basically what you seem to be doing here is telling me that objective morality does exist. And [somehow] it is connected to the existence of God. But you cannot now take me to this God able to confirm the existence of objective morality. Instead, we have to stay right here while you explain to me the philosophical “methodolgy” that must be grappled with and then wholly encompassed before that journey begins.
And then I ask myself: How is that really different from James insisting that he will not discuss the objective morality of Mary and John and their dead baby until I up into the stratosphere of abstraction with him and agree with his definitions and deductions pertaining to RM/AO.
And all I ask of him is at least some evidence that RM/AO is able to address the conflicting goods embedded existentially in the abortion conflagration “out in the world”.
No. That is not how I construe these things. One can have faith in anything. Just as one can believe in anything. If all someone is telling me is that they have faith in God [or the precepts/tenets of their religion], why is that something I ought to lend any weight to? All I can do is keep pointing out that, historically, God and religion have always been linked instead to behaviors said to be judged by God – such that in so being judged the immortality and salvation of a human soul itself is said to be at stake.
So [like James] you are arguing that even “up there” among who those are well-educated in discussing these things philosophically, scientifically, theologically etc., there are conflicting and contradictory definitions/deductions being endlessly discussed and debated back and forth.
That then reminds me of the exchange between James and Eugene Morrow. They were not even discussing morality or conflicting goods. They were instead at odds relating to the physical laws of nature itself! In other words, relationships that would seem to revolve entirely around either/or.
No, you are asking me which city “I” would prefer. But: “I” as I understand it is rooted in dasein. A particular dasein that, in the course of living his particular life, has acquired a set of values more or less conducive to living in one rather than another town. But that is not the same thing as suggesting [which I think you are] that any rational man or women would choose A or B. Here “common sense” revolves around your own interpretation of it. Right? But who are “you”? And why/how have you become predisposed existentially to choosing what you do? And is there [philosophically, scientifically, theologically, religiously etc] a choice that all rational folks would/could/should/must embrace?
To answer such questions with either a “simple” yes or a “simple” no is the sort of approach that someone like mr reasonable seems to take. But “simple” answers are the last thing that I would ever endorse. And if I were to answer “I don’t know” it would be embedded in the assumption that objectively [given the nature of dasein and conflicting goods] no one can ever know the answer.
Again: We do not think about these things [these relationships] in the same way.
And what makes you and James objectivists to me is not the actual substance of your arguments, but the manner in which you both seem to be convinced that the substance that you espouse is within reach of anyone who is in fact a rational human being.
And then how you both [somehow] link this “substance” to the Christian God. Only, from my vantage point, neither of your arguments are really substantive at all. Merely an analysis/argument rooted in the circular logic of your definition and deductions.
Thus when you ask me if I can “show you where I am wrong?”, there is nothing really substantial there for me to sink my teeth into. No beef. At least not yet.
If this is the case, we may well want to just conclude this exchange right here. Right now. I am simply not interested in an “academic” or “scholastic” or “theological” pursuit of the relationship between God, religion, science, philosophy, objectivity, and morality. And I begin to suspect that your “very long and detailed answer” will just evolve into another “intellectual contraption” like RM/AO.
Perhaps, instead, we should wait until you have published your book and can discuss actual human behaviors like abortion and homosexuality then – in less abstract terms.
This sounds rather Calvinistic. As though God really is omniscient/omnipotent such that He has sealed your fate from the very beginning. Thus it really makes no difference what behaviors you choose with respect to moral conflicts like abortion or homosexuality.
If so, isn’t the journey itself just one more manifestation of it?
When someone keeps suggesting that I am “confused” or “mistaken” regarding the answers I give. Or that I refuse to answer “simple” questions with “simple” answers, I am going to argue that this is not the case. When I am convinced that it is not. And as I noted to Phyllo above I do tend to become more or less polemical in exchanges such as this. Sorry. That’s all but hard-wired into me after all these years.
But I understand your point and I will try to integrate that into me reactions should you decide to continue the exchange.
I agree. There may well be an objective answer with respect to points of view that come into conflict. But if one person argues that Jim will be executed for murdering Jane because Jim did in fact murder Jane [he admits it] and that Jim will be executed tomorrow at noon because in fact he will be executed tomorrow at noon, and another argues that none of this is true, the objective truth is there to be determined. None of it is just a matter of one’s personal opinion.
But if some argue that his execution is moral while others argue that it is immoral, how is the “objective truth” to be determined then? Sure, it might exist. And some might link it to a particular God and He might exist. But how do philosophers determine it? And how do mere mortals [who are not omniscient] come up with a “simple” yes or no answer?
Is this observation then an inherent component of that universe? Are the words that I am typing here and now merely another intrinsic aspect of whatever the laws might have been that brought about the existence of the universe?
And are the ofttimes heated exchanges between theists and atheists here but more cosmological dominos toppling over on top of each other? Just an example of how astonishing the immutable laws of physics can be?
In other words, is there any possible way in which mere mortals can determine if the regress is derived from infinite space and time? from nothing at all? from God?
And what does it tell us about the nature of human psychology that there are actually an endless number of folks who really do believe that they have an answer.
Even the answer?!
My point was very simple.
The first thing is that our invented languages are not necessary for our perception/thinking. Our mind does not think in the terms of English or German.
I have discussed this issue in detail in the above mentioned thread. You may have a look.
The second point is that when we communicate with others, firstly we have to translate our thoughts to our mutually understandable language. But, in no case, that translation would be 100% precise. There would be always some difference between what exactly we thought and what set of language we used to express that thought. That is first approximation.
Now, the other person would hear that language, and once again, his mind has to translate that set of language in its own terminology. And, just like the first time, this translation would be not 100% perfect this time also. This is second approximation.
That happens every time when we communicate. That is why i am saying that the language can never be precise but there will be some content of approximation in that for sure.
John is a bachelor is a fact or truth but in a limited sense. If you tell it to such person, who does not know John completely, what meaning would he draw from it? The only thing he would able to understand that John has not married yet, nothing else. He may also assume that by saying that John is bachelor, your intention may be that though he is ready or want to marry but not married yet. That is from where approximation starts.
But, you may be talking about such a John, who is impotent or in the coma for some years. Then, your statement (John is a bachelor) will lose its true meaning, even though it is a truth.
I was drawing your attention to this phenomenon. That happens in every communication. No matter how hard you try, your intent will not be conveyed by 100%, something will be always left behind.
It seems to me that you did not get in which context i was saying that. I was talking about how the language operates between two persons, not the morality.
My point was that neither a women can explain what her physical and mental experiences were at the time of pregnancy, birth/abortion, not a man would be ever able to understand her feelings, no matter how hard both will try. That is the limitation of the language. Language is entirely dependent on the similarity of the experiences of the parties involved. Thus, the experience of womanhood could not be neither conveyed by the women nor understood by the men.
The fact of the matter is that we have not touched the actual subject yet. I have not said a single word about the God so far. We are rather engaged in objectivity/subjectivity discussion in different contexts.
Certainly. Is there any other way of drawing the conclusions? Yes, those may be right or wrong.
But, the story does not end here. All conclusions derived by such methodology should be brought to the table and should be challenged and discussed. Then, the most appropriate conclusion should be accepted as an objective opinion by all. Merely saying that every opinion is subjective does not serve the purpose.
Secondly, it is true that every opinion bounds to be subjective, but this does not mean that all such subjective opinions must have equal value. There will be some merits/demerits and proofs/assumptions in every opinion and they should be judged on that benchmark. Keep the judgment pending is not the solution.
But, they become philosophy when they do that.
As i said in the last post, what you considering as religions, are actually philosophies in true sense, not religions. In the strict sense, religions are limited to spiritual investigation by scholars in person. When their findings are used to form morality or lifestyle, they become philosophy by default. And, they should be seen accordingly too.
In crude language, religions are just lab assistants, which are on the payroll of philosophy.
Actually, that is what the religions are. What we are discussing here or people generally discuss considering religions, are philosophies, based on some spiritual findings.
That is precisely the perception that misleads you.
Like religions, science is also the lab assistant to philosophy. Science is restricted to the verifications of philosophical assumptions. That is how it has worked throughout the history of the mankind, except last 2-3 centuries, especially after Hume. I think that it was Hume, who is basically responsible for separating science from philosophy.
When science talks about assumptions like Big-Bang, how different is it from WTP of N?
Like religions, most of the science is also philosophy, if you exclude work done in the laboratories. These three streams of knowledge are so integrated and inter-dependent that you cannot draw a clear cut line between them.
I would like to draw your attention towards one more finding of the science. Einstein rejected the premise of Newton that the time is objective and concluded that it is also relative like location and speed. But, did he give any evidence of that? Not at the time, though it was later confirmed by placing two same clocks having same time at different heights like watch towers and satellites.
alternativephysics.org/book/Time … iments.htm
Now, what would you call this whole process, right from assumption to physical verification, science or philosophy?
Quite possible.
I can agree with that.
I will certainly be one of those, neither first nor the last. I am well aware of that.
And, what i am trying to do here is homework or taking feedback for my book. I want to know in advance what criticism by book will attract, so that i can address that already.
Yes, because that is not possible on the net either and needs interaction in person. Secondly, nobody is going to believe me either, like you will say that it is all in my head. Do you not? So, what other option i have?
No, actually it can also be proved philosophically to quite extent without going for new investigative scientific evidences, but by using some such phenomena, which is common and familiar (undisputed) to all. I will use those undisputed day to day experiences as evidences. There are many such phenomena around us but we do not pay attention to those. Actually, they are so common that we take those as granted.
Both things have to be done side by side. Without the theory, there cannot be any value judgments. You need a benchmark to judge anything.
You are only saying so but not doing that honestly, at least you are sounding such to me.
Look at this statement of yours again.
See, that is very straightforward and honest statement by you. You did not bring desdein into it, like you use it in every other statement. Why? Anyone can easily understand that you are passing a judgment and what is its true meaning. That clearly shows that it is not the case that you do not make clear subjective judgments. You do that when you want to do but when i am asking for the same, you steps back and vary carefully choose a very complex and confusing language, so i cannot accuse of taking a call. That is my objection.
I was talking precisely about your that habit of wondering. All i was saying that do not wonder or try to presume what is pertinent or not before i complete my any point by putting all things into perspective. After that, you are welcome to question as hard as you like.
I may lead you to some points or some phenomena, which may seem to you completely out of the context, but they will be not. You will also realize their relevance later.
Imb, you need to understand what i am trying to do and why. I can put all that very succinctly and directly but that would be in the way which i understand. That may be difficult for you to comprehend because you have gone through that what i experienced. Thus, you will keep repeating the same phrase of yours that is all in the head, not out there in the reality. And, this whole discussion will come to an end without achieving anything.
Thus, to overcome this problem, i am trying to talk in the language of your head, instead of my head. That is why i come up with these simple questions between our discussion. That will help your head to tune with my head. There is no other reason whatsoever. But, that can serve the purpose only when you give me honest and straight answers, not manipulative ones.
But, You may have not realized but that is exactly what you did by questioning the validity of my question. You refused to come along to the hills to verify the snowfall. You are saying that going to the hill is not pertinent with the verification of snowfall.
Actually i am taking you to the God, though not physically but philosophically for sure. You can make that journey from where you are. But, let your intellect travel with me to new thoughts. Do not question my way of constructing the argument, but only the argument itself. Otherwise, it would be the same mistake that the man of that desert analogy does.
You seem to be too much influenced by the James, either in right way or wrong way. We are not discussing here what James thinks or not. Please get out of this.
You completely misunderstood my point. I was not talking about all this.
If you remember my definition of the religions, which i gave above in this thread too, they are restricted to metaphysical investigations/spiritual practices in person. But, religious scholars do not do that anymore. They found faith in something by either by culture or reading the literature instead, to be a religious scholar, and think that they have been become a true religious scholar but they are not. They are actually mere intellectuals having faith in any particular philosophy. Religiosity entails investigation in person, otherwise it is mere philosophy.
Let me explain it. There would be a lot of difference in the understanding of a mere commentator and a real player. A commentator cannot be a true one, unless he is not played the game in person. What religions have now are mere commentators, who have never played the game themselves but trying to be an expert merely on the basis of known experiences of the past players. But, then the issue of the language approximation comes into play and that will not let them to understand what the other person has actually said and they start interpreting scriptures according to their incomplete understanding. That is exactly what the most of the religious scholars are doing since long.
You stretching this like a rubber. I am not saying that your I is not rooted in a particular dasein. Of course, it certainly would be. I am neither challenging it nor asking you to discard that either. All i am asking you to use that dasein and give me an answer at least, instead of repeating again and again that your values are rooted in your such subjective dasein, which i cannot understand.
But, you do not stick to this your very mindset or principle when you gave definition of subjectivists in the other thread!
Look again-
Now, what is this? Is it not a simple yes or no? Are you not very clearly concluding that objectivists will never concede to anyone? Did you not use your I here, which is rooted in your particular dasein, to draw a unmanipulated, simple and clear cut answer? But, you refuse to do the same when i ask you any question. Why do you behave differently when you want to decide anything and when i ask you to decide? And, this statement of yours is not the only one such example. You do that often.
That is my objection. Had you showed the same mindset regarding all the issues, i would have not objected. And, that also gives me impression that you are being selective with your this premise of subjectivity and use and discard it according to your convince.
No, that is not true. I do not know merely means that a particular person does not know. It does not entail that no one can ever know it. You may be unable to decide the objectivity but someone else, now or in the future, may be able to do that.
That is certainly true in my case. I will not deny that even if that is some sort of shortcoming, mistake or accusation by you. Having said that, i listen to other versions and my criticism patiently and open to change for the better too.
Having said that, I want to add a slight caveat to that. Objectivism is as much about the process too, as about the goal. If an objectivist will not able to find the perfect solution, it would settle for the best among the lot.
imb, to be honest, i do not know exactly what you expect from me and how you are expecting me to give you that. All i am trying to do in this thread is giving you the proof of the God, in the best way that you can understand and is possible on the net. That is all. And, that would be nothing like RM/AO but very simple arguments about very simple and common things/phenomena around us.
I do not have any issue either in continuing or concluding. That depends entirely upon you. I am open either way. If you see any worth in having discussion with me, you can continue, otherwise you can simply ask me to stop. I would not mind that at all. As you initiated this thread, thus should be your call. Though, personally i do not mind continuing. The only thing I would never tolerate is losing civility.
Maybe. You asked me a question and i give you such answer which i consider true.
It actually makes do difference to the ultimate outcome.
No. The journey is predetermined at macro level only, not the micro level. There is some room for free will also in the broder framework of determination. And, that free will can change the course and time taken during the journey, though ultimately it will end up precisely where it was supposed to be initially.
I am not saying that you should not explain yourself. I just told you my intention behind this discussion.
Glad to hear that.
Yes.
Sorry, i did not get what you are trying to say here. It looks to me that perhaps there is some linguistic issue with that.
By discussing and testing all viewpoints from every possible angles, with the best of the our ability and honestly too.
with love,
sanjay
But what does this really – really – have to do with the distinctions I keep making between words that are able to express what is true objectively for all of us [the laws of nature, empirical facts, the rules of language etc.] and words that seem able only to express a subjective point of view?
There may not be a precise translation when a German and an English doctor discuss performing abortions, but that which they are discussing is still embedded in the objective reality of human biology.
Not so when they discuss the morality of abortion. When one views abortion as moral and the other immoral.
How much less precise is the language then?
Same here. What does this really – really – have to do with addressing the point I am raising? We can use language to encompass both the biology of human sexuality and the biology of abortion…and this biology [embedded in the evolution of life on earth] is the same around the globe for all flesh and blood human beings. That, biologically, men are not women is an objective fact. And from this fact men can never understand pregnancy and abortion as women do. But who is arguing that they ought to? And yet “out in the world” there are both men and women who argue that abortion is either moral or immoral.
When are you then going to focus the beam more on the manner in which I discuss these opposing moral agendas with respect to dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? Biology is one thing, morality something altogether different with respect to things we can reduce down to either/or.
But this just reminds me yet again of James. In other words, only when I have finally understood the technical, philosophical distinction between “objective” and “subjective” [or the one true distinction between science, philosophy and religion] can we then move on to the parts that intrigue me. The parts relating to actual conflicting behaviors of actual human beings interacting out in the actual world that we live in.
Ah, but that will only happen [or so it certainly seems to me here and now] when I am able to agree with him about what this distinction is “logically”, “epistemologically”. Which [of course] entails that I embrace his own definitions and deductions. After all, how can his conclusions be said to be true unless they follow from his premises?
And here he becomes but one more objectivist qua abstractionist.
And my reaction is invariably the same: What [u][b]in the world[/u][/b] does this have to do [u][b]with[/u][/b] the lives that we actually live? Now, the preponderance of religionists that I have come upon in venues such as this may not be as scholarly in grasping the manner in which you connect the dots between religion and philosophy, but at least I recognized the world that we do live in when they spoke of their belief in God. I just didn’t share their faith.
When I discuss the manner in which I construe the relationship between words, language, objectivity, subjectivity, moral and political values, identity, political economy etc., I don’t have any problems illustrating the text. Over and again I situate the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of these words into actual flesh and blood human interactions. Indeed, I always ask the moral objectivists I come upon to join me “down here” so that we can in fact make our arguments more substantive.
You say:
But I don’t really have a clue as to what this actually means. It is simply too abstract pertaining to conflicting value judgments…and the manner in which they are embedded in a religous narrative.
Instead, I must first grasp your “theory”. And then back again to understanding [and agreeing with] your definitions and your deductions. Out of which you extract the asssumptions that [circularly] make your arguments true objectively. That is how I react to abstractions like these.
Yes, if I were answering them honestly you would recognize it as the sort of answer that is honest. And that will be the sort of answer that you would give. And then around and around we go.
In my view, my language is “complex and confusing” because it requires your language to come down out of the clouds of abstraction…i.e. to note how it is is relevant to the lives that we live. Lives that again and again come into conflict over moral, political and religious values. And, in my view, you will become more honest [as I perceive the meaning of that word here] when you are able to acknowledge just how much your argument is dependent on the internal logic of those definitions and deductions.
And I use dasein only when it is appropriate. In other words, when it pertains to identity and to value judgments. And then, time and again, I note the many, many, many instances in which it is not relevant at all: regarding that which is in fact true objectively for all of us. So, no, I do not keep repeating [mindlessly] the phrase “in your head”. I note instead the crucial the distinction between what we claim to believe is true subjectively “in our heads” and that which we are then able to demonstrate to others is in fact true objectively “out in the world” for all of us. Thus, when I ask “where’s the beef?” I am merely noting how, in my own estimation, you do not do this. Instead, as with James, that part will always come “later”.
But you don’t take me to the hills at all here. Instead, you want me to go “up there” where we can discuss the hills and the falling snow “theoretically”. Only after I have come understand this as you do can we go to the actual hills. Same with objective morality and God. Again, they come “later”. Now, however, as “serious philosophers”, we must first learn how to think “logically” about these things. The way James does. Or the way you do. Or the way hundreds and hundreds of additional objectivists do. And then when I point out how they all embrace conflicting and contradictory moral, political and religious dogmas, I am basically told, “well, what does that have to do with anything?” What counts, in other words, is that their own “theory” is the correct one.
You tell me that when our journey ends here you will not be taking me to the real God “physically”, but to the real God “philosophically”. Similarly, you will not be focusing here on resolving any actual “conflicting goods” I note with respect to issues like abortion or homosexuality; but only in demonstrating the “philosophical” truth one needs to grasp in order to bring the “logic” down here.
James in my view is an abstractionist. At least with respect to moral and political value judgments and to God. In some threads, he has this “theoretical” construct where everything fits together “logically”. And then, in other threads, he passes judgments on particular human behaviors. “Up there” here and “down here” there. But he refuses to connect the dots between them.
Al I can do here is once again note how [to me] this is an analysis/argument that amounts to little more than a string of words defining and defending more words still. Is it true? Well, true with respect to what? How is it relevant to the lives that we live from day to day? Of what practical use or exchange value is it when we are confronted with the question, “how ought I to live?”
In fact, this is precisely the sort “dueling deduction” approach to philosophy that we come across on threads like Lys’s “Performance Ontology”. Paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of these dense, scholastic, autodidactic abstractions. The stuff of pedants more often than not. In my view, this is precisely what makes “serious philosophy” today increasingly irrelevant to the lives we live.
But: What you are asking me to do is to answer this question such that the manner in which I think about any particular individual answering a question such as this is discarded altogether.
As though there were a “real me” that would be able to answer it as either A or B. As though “theoretically” a true philosopher would clearly be able to answer it in the only logical manner in which a rational human being could answer it. And yet over and again I do situate the manner in which “I” understanding these relationships out in the actual world. Something I can never get you to do. Only when questions and answers like this are reduced down to either/or are moral objectivists satisfied. Or, rather, this has been my own experience with them.
For me, this always comes down to the extent to which I become convinced that someone’s “definitions and deductions” will never pitch tent down here until and unless I agree to go up into the stratosphere in order to discuss and debate how, once and for all [logically], a truly serious philosopher must define and deduce these things.
As with James, I ask you only to at least give me a rough idea of how your moral and religious values “down here” are intertwined into your philosophical sense of how one distinguishes between an objective truth and a subjective point of view. James, of course, won’t go anywhere near that until I do agree to discuss all this “theoretically”. And then [though he won’t admit this] agree that his TOE must be the starting point when finally grappling with “existential reality”.
Linguistic? I am noting something that is in fact true with regard to all actual contexts in which someone does commit a capital crime. He admits that he committed the crime. The evidence confirms it overwhelmingly. And since the crime is a capital offense, he is sentenced to be executed for committing it.
Who is going to argue about the meaning of these words? If all of this is true objectively, what does it then mean [for all practical purposes] for someone to say that, on the contrary, in his opinion, none of it is true?
Instead, the heated discussions and debates revolve around whether it is just and moral for the state to execute the man.
Around political narratives like this: deathpenalty.procon.org/
In other words, to what extent, using the tools of philosophy, are rational men and women able to employ language in order to articulate the most rational argument of all? So as to articulate a deontological assesmment of this conflict.
And then, to what extent is someone who believes in God, able to integrate this argument into their religious narrative in turn.
And, in my view, it is in responding to this that you and James seem basically cut from the same cloth.
Or, rather, so it seems to me here and now.
You say that this can be accomplished…
But how in the world could any mere mortal come even remotely close to making contact with all of the various conflicting viewpoints here? After all, most of these viewpoints are precisely rooted in all of the many historical, cultural and experiential contexts that millions upon millions of different men and women have been embedded in throughout human history.
How could one’s “ability” and “honesty” not be profoundly problematic here precisely for this reason?
Or consider this:
Mike wants Mitch to be executed because Mitch raped, tortured and killed his 12 year old daughter. His death will at least bring him some closure, some peace of mind to him and his family.
Mary does not want Mitch killed because Mitch is her brother. His execution will cause her [and her family] great pain and suffering.
Here are words being used to articulate a context viewed from two conflicting points of view. Now, given your own philosophical tenets and religious beliefs, what would your own reaction be?
Again, at least nudge me in the direction you would like for me to go.
Another quote from John Lennon: “God is a concept by which we measure our pain”.
And who does not have to endure pain? Now, with religion you have a place to dump it all. With God [whether in the context of a particular denomination or in a broader – and considerably vaguer – “spiritual” relationship] you can situate it in His “Will”, in His plan for you, in His “mysterious ways”.
So, sure, if you are able to acquire [existentially, as dasein] such a “spiritual” connection with your own “personal” God, why not? You can merely point to what you believe to be true about Him “in your head”.
But then [in my view] you are still faced with this: What ought I to do such that my behaviors “down here” will be judged favorably by God “up there” so as to attain immortality and salvation?
And what of those who believe in another, different God? Or those who believe in no God at all? What will be their fate?
But, for the ecumenical religionists, is that really their concern at all? As long as they are covered “spiritually” regarding their own “personal” relationship with God, that need be as far as it goes.
I only wish that I could figure out a way to believe that “in my head”.
sorry
Lmb,
I am sorry for the delay. I am not having much spare time since last 3-4 days.
Actually, the first issue with me that the English is neither my first language nor i am an expert of it. I cannot think in the terms of English. I have to think in my mother tounge before translating it into English, especially regarding subtle and complex issues. That takes a lot of time.
Secondly, for some reasons, my mind takes a long time to reach any conclusion. And, i cannot do that it parts. Means, i need at least two hours time at a streach to reply in such threads, in which we are involved right now. That makes it more diffcult for me.
I hope that you understand and bear with me.
Nevertheless, i will make posts tomorrow in both of the threads.
with love,
sanjay
This, in other words: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism
And isn’t that just another rendition of this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism
Now, sure, I can well understand the appeal of this. In fact, I was once a member of the Unitarian church right here in Baltimore. And Untitarian-Universalism is not all that far removed from the two above: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
It is appealing because it seeks to obviate the sectarian nature of denominational religion and places the emphasis more on your own personal “spititual growth”. It was basically my own attempt to find some sort of middle ground between “our God” in the Protestant Community Church and “no God at all”.
But it didn’t take. Or not for long. I was becoming increasingly more embedded in the political struggle to reconfigure “the system” back then; and many, many folks here were quite radical. And that invariably meant that they were atheists. And so I became one too.
Also, I have never really understood how one can believe in a God, the God…then subscribe to one or another rendition of scripture…then link it all to one or another rendition immortality and salvation.
It was like a “cafeteria” approach to right and wrong, moral and immoral behavior. As long as you were able to convince yourself that any particular behaivor was not a Sin, then God would overlook it on Judgment Day. You know, if it did not coincide with His actual will.
Thus it seemed more a way to reduce everything down to some vague “spiritual” intuition. A way to set aside conflicting value judgments rather then to meet them head on.
Again, respond when you are able. No problem from my end.
Of course the necessary ingredients here are the actual ingredients one either has access to or does not. You either have bread to eat in the end or you do not.
And, yes, there are folks who can then make that leap from bread that you bake in an actual oven with actual ingredients to the “bread of life” where the ingredients become baked “in your head”. Speculative ingredients that allow you to feel what you have come to connote as a “spiritual” frame of mind.
But since the “bread of life” is basically just a subjective point of view, it is all but futile trying to refute it. If for no other reason that you are not able to experience it yourself. After all, in order to experience it you would have to have lived the life of one who does.
All you can do here is to point this out to the “true believer” and ask him the extent to which he is then able to demonstrate beyond what he believes to be true “in his head” is in fact true.
I think this is a fairly reasonable way in which to imagine one possible future for religion. But [of necessity] it is conveyed in a rather abstract manner. It notes the role that political economy plays in shaping and molding our existential narratives down here in “the real world” – but it is not able to actually prescribe any practical remedies.
I merely suggest then that there are two possible reasons for this: dasein and conflicting goods.
It seems to me that [at best] we can agree only to disagree about the stuff that can never be resolved objectively – other than in a world in which one or another God does choose to reveal Himself such that even the most devout atheist has to admit to His existence.
And then He can finally lay down the law regarding what either is or is not a Sin.
And then we can either agree to behave accordingly or not. Assuming someone is able to explain how human autonomy is reconcilable with a God that is said to be omniscient. Assuming that any actual existing God is.
This is basically the point I keep coming back to.
We can discuss and debate the meaning of words like “God”, “religion”, “soul” and “spirit”. We can try [to the best of our abilities] to relate to others what these words have come to mean to us in the context of the life that we have lived.
That, in my view, is the “in my head” part. That’s the part where some folks are comforted and consoled by the manner in which they have come to react to these words in a particular way out in a particular word.
But that is basically where many stop. They simply will not or cannot broach the implications of this when behaviors come into conflict over value judgments. In other words, how do they factor what these words have come to mean to them into their reaction to moral and political conflicts?
For example, are they arguing that those on either side of the abortion conflict who believe in God, the soul, a spiritual or religious narrative etc., are all justified in behaving in accordance with their belief?
Are they suggesting that the particular God they believe in will not judge those who are either for or against abortion – as long as their faith/belief in Him is genuine?
As always, it is the relationship between “in my head” and “out in the world with others”, between “down here” and “up there”, that most intrigues me. So, I wonder, why doesn’t it also seem to intrigue them?
How in the world can someone [anyone] challange it? Basically what the poster is arguing is that “in his head” he has defined “a God” to be this and “the God” to be that.
Now, he either believes this to be true or he does not. But how does he go about demonstrating that what he believes is true “intellectually”, “theoretically” etc., is so other than in insisting that others must believe it in their heads too.
The whole argument is completely insubstantial…relying soley on what someone claims is true if you share his premises. That is the font of his “objectivity”.
Thus a “good” or a “poor” argument revolves wholly around figuring out a way to get others to share your deductions regarding the “act” of defining God.
And, really, what does any of that have to so with the lives that we live “out in the world” with others?
Sorry imb, I could not kept my promise.
Nothing. I was merely continuing with my explanation of the approximation of the language.
That is true. But, that happens precisely the explanation that i gave in the last post. They can understand each other because they have same experience of the subject. That fills the gap of approximation.
That is true again. And, that is so because their experience and process of deriving moral conclusions is not the same.
It is no more the issue of the language when they differ in their perception. Approximation of the language is a very subtle issue and does not come into play every time, but only when we see it from the lens of precision. Otherwise, language works fine.
Nothing again. I mentioned that in the last post too. If you go back to the old posts, you will find that i have not said that in the reply of morality. I was merely explaining my pov of the working of the language.
Let us keep that for the other thread; otherwise you will again complain that i am not focusing on the issue of God.
As i said above, let us keep the subjects of two threads different, otherwise it will become messy. Leave objective/subjective discussion to the other thread.
To be honest, that was neither my intention nor i tried any such thing.
You did not realize but actually it is you who pushed me into the discussion of various related premises. This is what you said in our second post-
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929#p2500893
I would have gone straight to the proof of the God, but before i would have said anything about the subject, you raised the issue of in the head and out there in the world. And, i had no choice but to reply.
You are blaming me that i am putting some preconditions before addressing to the actual subject, but have you not done the same by saying the whatever i would say, it would be in my head only. Then, how can you expect me to leave that and move on?
By the way, agreeing on certain basic premises is not a bad thing either. That is why I did not object. Is it not better to discuss arithmetic before discussing Algebra?
Though, this was also the extension of explanation of the approximation of language but it actually has a lot to do with the lives that actually live, even far more than you can assume.
This was/is the only issue with the religions so far. Had religious scriptures came with lexicons, this world would have been quite different from what it is now. Merely one Jesus or Buddha would have been enough to transform the world.
Firstly, I do not consider myself scholar either, as this term is generally understood now. I am more an Empiricist than a scholar or commentator. I learned the game by playing on the ground in person, not from what other players has been said about their gaming experiences in the past. I do not need Bible, Quran or Gita to have faith in either of their respective religions. Most of the scholars would not be able to say that but I can.
Secondly, how you concluded that what i am saying or will say will have nothing to do with our lives, and that also without knowing what I would say! Should you not wait a little longer to form an opinion? That is not expected from a subjectivist, at least.
I have no problem or hesitation in joining you down there at any issue that you want. But, keep that for the other thread otherwise both of your threads will lose the direction and will go nowhere.
That is true. That is why am asking you again and again not to presume much.
I would have done that, had you not raised issues like in your head and out there in the world.
Once again, i am not expecting any particular answer from you. All i want is such an answer from which i can draw any meaning. After all, what could be any other purpose of answering? I am even ready to accept i do not know. But, you says that you know yet not say anything.
That is not the point.
Complexity does not entail confusion.. Either go for any option or say that i am not sure either way. Do not hang in between. That does not serve any purpose.
If you are confused or unable to decide, let others take the decision. And, when they do that, do not raise the issue of in your head. Now, do not question their process of decision making by saying that it is their subjective decision. Yes, once they are done with that, you can raise objection again if you find anything objectionable. Then, let your head collides and see what happens.
Do not hamper the evolution of decision. Allow it to take its own natural course.
Once again, you are missing the point altogether.
First of all, i am neither from that breed of serious philosophers nor want to be included in that list. I have nothing like RM in my sleeve, though i consider it logical and useful.
Secondly, i am literally taking you up to the hills because you want proof and there is no other way i can give you that. But, you are asking me whether i really have seen the snowfall or it is merely my illusion (in my head), standing right there in the desert? You are not ready to follow my argument till the end. On the contrary, you are questioning my methodology even before i say anything.
This is what you are doing. Are you not asking me again and again how this is related to the proof of the God? How can you know or decide what is pertinent or not, given that you are not aware of what i am going to say? Leave that to me, at least for now. You will again get the chance to raise objections, when i would be done with that. But, not now.
imb, you are not the only one who is making this mistake. Most of the people do that. Unless and until, you are not ready to listen to anyone keeping your bias aside, you will never able to truly understand what the other person is saying. One has to leave his previous perception aside to grasp the essence of the other person’s perception. You have to make some room for something new, otherwise it will bounce back instead of coming in.
listen like a student but question like a master.
You would not have that issue with me at all. I will do that by all means.
imb, do not bring other people into discussion. Otherwise, that will do nothing but cause more distraction.
But, as i said above, i will connect the dots from up there to right up to down here.
It is very pertinent with how i ought to live. Nothing is useless. A mere 0 can enhance or reduce the value of any figure by ten times. The same is with the language. If one is not aware of the context, intention of the narrator and the targeted audience, he can easily confuse rope with snake and vice-verse.
I would like you give an example here. Below is the English translation of some verses of Quran from [u]Al-Baqarah Chapter 2 :
Verse 67 - And remember when Moses said to his people: ‘Allah commands you to slaughter a cow,’ They said, “Do you make fun of us?” He said, “I take Allah’s Refuge from being among Al-Jahilun (the ignorants or the foolish).”
Verse 68 - They said, “Call upon your Lord for us that He may make plain to us what it is!” He said, “He says, ‘Verily, it is a cow neither too old nor too young, but (it is) between the two conditions’, so do what you are commanded.”
Verse 69 - They said, “Call upon your Lord for us to make plain to us its colour.” He said, "He says, ‘It is a yellow cow, bright in its colour, pleasing to the beholders.’ "
Verse 70 - They said, “Call upon your Lord for us to make plain to us what it is. Verily to us all cows are alike, And surely, if Allah wills, we will be guided.”
Verse 71 - He [Musa (Moses)] said, "He says, ‘It is a cow neither trained to till the soil nor water the fields, sound, having no other colour except bright yellow.’ " They said, “Now you have brought the truth.” So they slaughtered it though they were near to not doing it.
Now, may I ask what you can make of these verses?
Any literate person would say that The God is asking Muslims to sacrifice the cows in his name. But, Musa was not talking about the cows at all. He used cow as metaphor for human intellect.
This is still an issue in India because Hindus worship cows and Muslims want to sacrifice them. That often leads to conflicts and communal riots, though not much now. But, this has affected or even killed enumerable people so far. See, how the approximation of the language affects the lives down here.
I can give you enumerable examples of that.
I know that and have been acknowledged that too manytimes in both threads. I am sure that you have been noticed that too. But, you insisted repetition of that tells me that you may have not got the same response from the other objectivists. Perhaps, they would have said that they have concluded all pure objectively. But, i am not going to commit the same mistake.
Why? Why are you choosy? And, how you decide that any moment is appropriate for considering anything truly objective? Do you have any other benchmark other than your dasein? Are you not committing the same mistake, for which you accuse objectivists?
I would not say mindlessly but you do not realize that you tend to use it far more than it is required and justified. And, others take offence to that too.
Let me give you an example how it looks from the other side.
You passed many judgments at the James. Right. Say, i pick anyone of those, and start debating you that you are wrong about him and all this is nothing but in your head. How will you respond? Firstly, you will try to convince me, but if i keep repeating the same line for every explanation coming from your side, what would you do? And, also remember, i would not be wrong either saying that because all that would be actually coming from your head!
But, you did not use the same benchmark for N’s WTP! You seem to be pleading for that it actually exists out there in the world.
Secondly, does almost the whole of the philosophy not exist merely in our heads instead of out there?
Are you also aware of the fact that the same argument of yours is now given by the majority of scientists that all this intellectual philosophy is nothing but an illusion, which is merely in the heads of some people, not out there in the real world?
Do you agree with that? If not, how would you like to defend philosophy?
Thirdly, i would like to extend that argument a bit and apply it on thoughts and emotions. You and i know that we have thoughts and emotions. We would not argue on their existence, whether either of us have any proof or not. But, if an android or an alien would ask us to prove the existence of thoughts or emotions on the ground, how would we be able to do that?
imb, there are three levels of verifications. First party, Second party and Third party.
Religions deal in First party verifications, philosophy in Second party and science purely on Third party. Philosophical verifications are of the nature of Second party only. It is mutual between two such parties, who are at par in the terms of experience. Do not expect philosophy (as of now) to bring third party verifications. I can guarantee you that he whole of philosophy would fail at this very issue.
A hardcore scientist would simply keep repeating that all that is in the head of the philosophers, not in the real world out there. And, no one would be able to counter that either. Out there are only third party evidences, neither second nor the first ones.
imb, you response surprised me this time. I am just fail to understand how do not see this pertinent with daily lives of the people and religions.
I explained you the difference between knowledge ( Empirical knowledge) and information (Bookish knowledge).
And, i also explained above to you how the lives of many people was/is affected by the slight misunderstanding caused by no having actual knowledge but mere information.
imb, i hate to do that kind of philosophy. Secondly, my English is not good enough for that either. I cannot use those heavy words.
No. In my last post, i very clearly asked from you, not any other individual.
So, you again chose not to an answer but wrote a whole para instead! By the way, are you not doing the same, for which you just accused Lyssa, writing para after para but not addressing how one ought to live? Is if fair on your part?
imb, you are avoiding answer not because you are unable to decide, but because that would challenge your subjective mindset. Nevertheless, the job is done because that is all what i wanted.
It has nothing to do with my satisfaction. I was merely trying to show you that one does not need the God all the time to answer the moral questions, as you suggested. And, i am sure that the message has been conveyed.
Though, there is nothing wrong in that either but i have not done anything such intentionally. Such things come and go in long discussions. I do not see it very big deal either.
I can give you exact idea, not to say about any rough clue. But, for that, you need to focus on the issue and stop side stepping. You tend to bring many other people, your past experiences and thus derived conclusions on them, and i have no option but to respond.
Let us shift to the other thread and use it as a test case to test objectivity/subjectivity.
For now, as a principle, the capital punishment depends on the state of culprit, not much on the crime. If there is any scope of improvement, capital punishment should be avoided, no matter how serious the crime may be. But, if the culprit has been gone beyond cure and the crime are very serious too, capital punishment may be awarded.
So, it depends on the case. In principle, there should be provision for the capital punishment in the law.
By provoking the accumulated knowledge, that mankind has been earned so far. That is best option that we have.
That is true. So what? How that does come in the way of making any decision? On the contrary, are they not a test case for us? Does our courts do not recite and consider their past judgments while deciding the new ones?
That may be true in some cases. But, we have to stick that very methodology because that is the best option that we have for now. You can suggest if you have any better one. Otherwise, follow what is best choice for you.
Shift this also to the other thread.
Lastly, if you want to discuss only the proof of the God, focus merely on that. If you want to discuss morality and how one ought to live, stay on that. Do not conflate between both threads. Or, it is also fine to me if you want to have just general discussion. It is up to you to decide, not me. I am merely responding to what you are saying.
with love,
sanjay
I wish, however, that you would examine this distinction that I make with respect to any particular individual’s belief in God or in embracing one rather than another conflicting good.
No, they can understand each other objectively because with respect to human biology something either is or is not objectively true. They may also have the “same experience” in having to choose whether to argue that abortion is moral or immoral. But how is that distinct from discussing abortion as a medical procedure? In fact, here their experiences are rooted far more in the subjective narratives derived from dasein.
With abortion as a medical procedure “language works fine” because it was invented to be applicable to the actual biological parts embedded in a woman’s reproductive system. With abortion as a moral issue it works fine only to the extent that you embrace the premises rooted in the arguments from both sides. But one side is not able to make the premises of the other side go away. One side argues that the unborn have the right to live. But that does not make the argument that women should not be forced to give birth go away. Right?
I’ll try, but please note:
Generally, when someone tells me that they believe in God, they are telling me that they have found a font [an omniscient, omnipotent font] that enables them to ground their moral values in an objective source. So, sooner or later they have to connect this dot themselves. Otherwise, what does the discussion have to do with dasein and conflicting goods?
And this, after all, is my own main focus in discussions of this sort.
And, as you noted recently to James:
To me, it is as though you wish to make a distinction that really cannot be made with respect to the lives that we actually live. At least if we choose to live/interact with others.
Yes, I understand your point but I can only note my own many experiences with religionists and moral objectivists in venues such as this. They seem willing to come “down here” only after I go “up there” and agree with them regarding which definitions and deductions are the starting point for discussing the existence of God and/or human morality. Again, if I cannot grasp how they think about these things theoretically “in their heads” how can I possibly understand how they think about something like abortion or homosexuality “down here”? And that part is invariably “later”. Only later always seems to revolve around me agreeing with them with respect to the discussion “here and now”.
All I can do is imagine others reading this and then wondering: What does this have to do with my own belief in God, with my own value judgments? From my own experience, it is one thing to go around and around regarding definitions and deductions…and another thing regarding the relationship between our value judgments, our behaviors and the actual existential consequences of those behaviors. After all, what are the consequences of dueling definitions and deductions here?
The complexity of logic is related to the complexity of human interactions in conflict. Sure. But what are the limitations of language in resolving those conflicts? Similarly, in my view, the complexities of definitions and deductions pertaining to the arguments one is able to give regarding the existence of God theoretically is not the same as actually demonstrating the existence of this God. Or not to me.
Or, perhaps, you are missing my point altogether.
But: What is it that you do have…something which might be able to nudge nonbelievers into examining God from the direction you wish them to go? And you seem to acknowledge that the hills and the snow are part and parcel of some intellectual contraption that you have deduced in your head. As though the hills and the snow here are just a rhetorical device to move the discussion along.
Perhaps you should just ignore the manner in which I strive to bring the discussion here down to earth. Perhaps you should just continue on to examining “whether something exists beyond our limit of physical approach or not”. But: It is coming up now on two months since you first broached that. And I still have no idea how this is related [substantively] to a God, the God, your God.
But, sure, that may [largely] be my own doing. And yet from my point of view you are just as culpable in ignoring the direction that I wish the discussion to go. No doubt, bringing us back to the manner in which we may well be in two separate discussions here. Discussions predicated on two very different sets of assumptions/premises. And, yes, that may well lead to its unraveling.
Again, the assumption is that I am biased, not you. And yet, with respect to these relationships, I start with the assumption that we can only exchange subjective points of view derived [at least in part] from the limitations of language. And logic. And definitions and deductions] in exploring them.
I seek to suggest here that this is beyond the capability of philosophers. Unless, of course, that are able to make that leap to God. Their God then becoming their font for deducing objective morality. Just as Kant did here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=174111&p=2192848&hilit=Christine+Korsgaard#p2192848
Well, some [myself included] have argued that, historically, in a particular place and time, a particular human community came to believe in the existence of this God. A God, the God of Moses and Abraham. And then, historically, Christianity, Islam and Judaism were derived from different renditions of what it means to believe in and to worship this God. And thus how one reacts to the verses above will be predicated on which particular denominational rendition of this God one subscribes to.
That’s what I make of them. First and foremost anyway. That is how these beliefs are rooted historically, existentially “out in the world”. Out in a particular world at a particular time.
Here, though, you seem to be setting yourself up as, what, an authority on that which is being conveyed here? Thus, if others do not agree with you they are perforce wrong?
Are you suggesting that?
Yes, and all of this “down here” is predicated on how one does connect the dots between cows and God. The cows do in fact exist though. But what about God? Let alone that how one human community connects the dots there is entirely at odds with how another community will. Then what? How, given the manner in which you consture the existence of God, should one go about discussing this with those communities embattled regarding what are clearly conflicting goods? The fact is that in India, people have been slaughtering each other now for centuries over what is deemed to be objectively moral. And how that is then related to God. And not just with respect to cows.
I don’t know how to explain it better than I already have. There either is an existing God or there is not. You are either able to demonstrate his existence or you are not. You are either able to connect the dots between your belief in this God and your value judgments pertaining to behaviors such as homosexuality or you are not.
This as opposed to what [to me] is the objective reality of this exchange we are in fact having here and now. Sure, you and I [and this exchange] may well exist only in the mind of someone who is dreaming all of this into existence. Or we can go down deep into the technical arguments of Descartes and the solipsists and the Platonist [with their reality in and out of the cave] and reduce the exchange down to definitions and deductions.
Me, I’ll take a leap to the actual objective existence of the exchange. But I won’t do the same regarding the alleged objective existence of God or objective morality. I will need a more persuasive argument than the one that you have provided me so far.
Again, as with dasein, I use it when I deem it is appropriate to use it. And, with respect to identity, value judgments, God and relegion, that is quite a lot. Why? Because many folks will assert many things about them without examining in depth the extent to
which they are able to conflate what they believe “in their head” and that which all rational men and women must believe.
How do they actually go about demonstrating the distinction between what can shown to be true objectively for all of us [math, science, empircal facts, logic etc,] and what is instead only presumed to be true “in their heads” based on the assumptions they make.
As for James, is it or is it not true that he refuses to connect the dots between the abstract, theoretical claims he makes in the threads relating to RM and the Real God, and the moral and political narratives he espouses on other forums?
The question I then raise here is this: Is this not also true regarding yourself?
I honestly do not follow your train of thought here. WTP is merely Nietzsche’s own subjective rendition of how one might [or ought to] explain human interaction out in the world. But, as I recently noted on another thread, did or did not Nietzsche himself largely live in a “world of words”? After all, what sort of actual power did Nietzsche wield out in the world with others? Instead, he seemed ever plagued with one or another psycho-somatic ailment and eventually went insane.
Indeed, there are any number of folks from KTS here who embrace one or another rendition of WTP. But how do they go about making the distinction between objective truths and subjective points of view? Are they not as well abstractionists by and large.
As I noted above:
In fact, this is precisely the sort “dueling deduction” approach to philosophy that we come across on threads like Lys’s “Performance Ontology”. Paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of these dense, scholastic, autodidactic abstractions. The stuff of pedants more often than not. In my view, this is precisely what makes “serious philosophy” today increasingly irrelevant to the lives we live.
Now, to what extent are you be able to transcend this yourself in our exhange here? Below you note how you don’t do this sort of thing yourself. How you “hate this kind of philosophy”.
And yet it is to both of you that I would still ask [over and again]: Where is the beef? The existential beef? I see a distinction here that you do not.
Yes, but many scientists root this in determinism. In the immutable laws of matter. Or they argue that with respect to morality, science has no business being involved at all because the tools of science function only in regard to those things that can be reduced down to either/or. At least with respect to the macro-world of human interaction.
Here though I root my own indeterminancy [philosophically] in my “dasein dilemma”.
Again, I can only note to others how abstract this is. What particular thoughts and what particulat emotions relating to what particular God or value judgment…pertaining to what particular self embodying them? And in what particular context?
When Jim justifies condeming Jane’s abortion as immoral per his faith in God, how is first, second and third party “verifications” then brought into the discussion? Or can that only come later – after we nail down theoretically how [logically, epistimologically, linguistically etc.] this distinction must be made?
But: You do not think of identity from the perspective of dasein. As I do. So, in choosing a city in which the distinction revolves around one set of values as opposed to another, “I” can only respond from within the existential context of my actual life. And not from within the context of what an alleged rational man or woman would be said to choose if they wish to be thought of as a rational human being. And, even though you deny it below, that seems to be more your own rendition of “choosing” here. At least to me. As though to suggest that if I don’t choose the “right” city, then I am not thinking about the question as a rational man would.
To wit:
No, the answer I gave revolves around that manner in which I think of questions like this – as revolving largely around subjective points of view rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. In a world sans God. And, in turn, from the point of view that there are limitations beyond which language and logic cannot go. Or, rather, in the manner in which I construe these relationships here and now.
You say that you can. But first comes this:
Yes, but I don’t make these distinctions as you do. To discuss God and/or morality without bringing the world that we live in into it right from the start is the route that most abstractionists seem to prefer. First, they tell me, let me show you the only rational and logically manner in which to think about these things. And then after you agree with me about that, we can begin to illustrate the text. You keep pointing out that this is not your intention here at all and yet you still refuse to offer anything other than those definitions and deductions. Or so it seems to me. Why can’t/don’t/won’t you at least nudge me in the direction of how you link your existential views on homosexuality and and your views on God and philosophy? If I could begin to understand that more clearly it would certainly pique my interest further.
You suggest instead that we can focus more on that over at the other thread. Okay, I’ll wait and see what you have to say there. But, again, for me, identity, values, ethics, philosophy, religion, God etc., are either integrated “out in the world” through our arguments here or they are not. It just doesn’t make much sense [to me] to say “first one, than the other”. As an existentialist, I just don’t think like that. At least not with respect to the relationship between identity, values, political economy and the limitations of language.
But that can still only be reflected from [or condensed down into] a particular point of view. Google capital punishment: google.com/search?sourceid= … punishment
Thousands upon thousands of particular sites you can go to dispensing thousands upon thousands of particular points of view rooted in thousands upon thousands of particular historical, cultural and experientiental contexts.
And, in the end, we are still left with conflicting goods that no philosophical argument that I have ever come across is able to resolve. Instead, folks embrace a particular set of assumptions and take their existential/political leaps. Just like you and I do.
And: with or without God.
So: one’s “best option”. How far removed is that from the “objective truth”? And how is this factored into one’s belief in God and religion?
So [u][b]what[/u][/b]?!!! Boy, does [u][b]that[/u][/b] speak volumes regarding the gap between us. At least from my point of view.
Throughout the ages historically, and across the globe culturally, different folks [enacting different laws] have come to view everything from abortion and slavery to gender roles and capital punishment from every imaginable point of view. But one thing that the philosophers/ethicists have never managed to accomplish is to delineate the most rational argument so as to resolve these conflicts once and for all.
But, sure, here too one can insert a “so what?” And then argue that theoretically the one objective truth does exist and some day we will find it. With or without God. But then most moral objectivists are quick to add that when they finally do find it, it will coincide precisely with what they think is true right now. Just as, when God finally does choose to reveal Himself, it will be their God.
Go ahead, ask them.
Well, I certainly concede that.
And I concern myself less with any particular conception of God and more with the extent to which one who believes in this concept of God is able to demonstrate, in turn, the extent to which it can lead to a proof of the actual existence of a God, the God, my God.
Or the extent to which God’s existence actually is an “existential” phenomenon at all; or, instead, is rooted more in an essential state of “being” – one that might well be beyond the capacity of mere mortals to grasp at all.
And this, in my view, is the one many religionists embrace. They are then relieved of the responsibility of “proving” the existence of God at all. Why? Because the very nature of God’s existence lies precisely in those “mysterious ways” attributed to Him. And these can be grappled with “out in the world” only when God chooses to reveal Himself. As with, say, the Second Coming of Christ.
That way any particular individual religionist is free to believe in any particular conception of God in any particular way that [u][b]works[/u][/b] for him or her “in their head”.
In fact, some are even willing to concede this by accepting the fact that a “faith in God” may well be as far as it can ever go for mere mortals. At least on this side of the grave.
What the atheists believe is that the theists have yet to convince them of the existence of any particular God beyond how they have defined or deduced this God into existence.
In their heads, for example.
In fact with some theists it is almost as though God has nothing whatsoever to do with the lives that we actually live. He is basically just an intellectual contraption. Or, for others, a psychological defense mechanism.
This argument seems perinent only with respect to the possible existence of a God. But most religionists go beyond that and claim a faith/belief in the God, their God.
And then [generally] it is the existence of this God that becomes crucial because it is this God that will judge us. It is pertaining to the existence of this God that immortality and salvation are at stake.
That is why I am always [by far] most curious about the really crucial gap between the existence of a God – a God in which arguments like this [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_ … nce_of_God ] seem aimed, and the existence of the only God that counts: the alleged Creator Himself.
And it is this gap that the religionist are least able to close.
Or so it seems to me.