I think I see your point, of course you have to start where you are. But real philosophy can not start before you have broken down your illusions/abstractions—that is, understood them for what they are.
They definately should, or else they will be blinded by what they already “know” to be true.
They are unlikely to ever view anything (beside their own perceptions) as definite truths, because they understand that they can never know. What they are likely to find is that some beliefs are more rational/probable than others, and then base their philosophy upon that, rather than some absolute truth from “above”.
All I’ve ever seen of “right” and “wrong” has been subjective labels. Where is the evidence that makes their objective reality a probability?
Deciding that one's most taken-for-granted truths are illusion and abstraction (skepticism) doesn't sound like a starting point at all to me, it sounds like something that should be arrived at after careful examination. I would agree that "everything you know is wrong" seems to be a common place to begin with philosophy, maybe it's that attitude that I'm criticizing.
The only thing you can know is your perceptions. Not what they are of, only the perceptions themselves. To understand this is the open mind. From there you have to start using logic and reason, which are tools you can never know to be accurate. However, experience shows that these are the most useful tools we have, and therefore the tools most appropriate for philosophy (and I would say, the only tools appropriate).
I’m afraid the open mind is a difficult state to attain for a religious person, and most other people for that matter. The reason is that you can’t just throw away everything you believe in—it’s impossible, because for you the beliefs are real. Before you can start doing real philosophy, you have to break down everything you hold to be absolute truth. If you seriously question your theistic beliefs from the position that they could well be false, you may soon start to question even their probability.
What’s the use of philosophy if you already know the truth? Use it to argue your beliefs so that others may come to them also? The problem is that there are so many different beliefs in the world, that you have to consider that what you “know” may well be wrong—what are the chances of your exact conditioning being the “correct” one?
You should not start with “all I know is wrong”, you should start with “all I know may well be wrong”. Then you start questioning what you can know, and what you can only infer. When you have found this answer, you can finally start doing what I would call real philosophy.
The answer I have found is that I can only know my own perceptions, and that everything else is at best informed guesses. Do you agree with this?
There's plenty to examine in philosophy beyond such rudimentary truths as "There is a material world" and "some actions are wrong". I don't see how that could be argued.
About those matters in which there are 'so many different beliefs' in the world, I certainly agree with you. Those are not the matters we've brought up so far, though. That there is such a thing as right and wrong, that there is such a thing as outside reality, these are beliefs held by everyone that doesn't go through a rigorous process of denial and philosophy to rid themselves of them. They are part of our [i]constitution[/i], Reid would say. They don't at all resemble beliefs about a religion or a political ideal.
The problem is, doubting implies a hidden conclusion. For example, take perception of an outside world. Now, I’m not saying that it can’t be doubted. I’m saying that to doubt it as a matter of course implies that it is doubtable, which isn’t something that should happen without argument.
In effect, the skeptic says “Yes, I realize that everyone everwhere believes in external reality, and no doubt we always will. I realize that it is impossible to function without this belief, and that even I can only doubt it when I’m concentrating very hard- when I’m thinking of anything but philosophy, it comes back in full force. So, granting all of that, [i]why ELSE should I believe it to be true?[/i]” The hidden assumption is that all of the above isn’t sufficient for some reason, and ought to be disregarded.
EDIT: Your final question. I believe that our perceptions are those things we can know most certainly. I believe that with everything else, it is possible for the skeptic to devise a scenario in which we are fooled or tricked or mistaken. I don’t think I would tie the word ‘knowledge’ to this impossible standard, though, and I don’t think the skeptic offers much that should give pause.
If you were living in the Matrix, you’d never have a chance of finding your way out… Is it not better to question than not to question? I will never trust society, evolution or even God to provide me with the truth; so I’ll continue questioning, everything.
Conserning “right” and “wrong”, all we intitially knew where pain and pleasure, and which perceptions corresponded to each of them. Somehow, trough conditioning or trough interpretation of our pain/pleasure signals, we deviced the consepts of “right” and “wrong” for ourselves. For me, “wrong” is what hurts me, and “right” it what gives me pleasure—because I defined it as such.
To find out if someting is doubtable we have to doubt/question it, now don’t we?
There is no good reason to change the belief that there is an external world, only to allow for the possibility, however remote. Is there any practical reason for doubting the existence of the outside world? Not that I can thing of. And that’s why it’s not a big issue for me, although a good example to illustrate how little we can know with absolute certanity.
if it’s possible for the skeptic to device a scenario, then could not also that scenario be true? Concerning “knowledge”, fair enough. In my posts I have emphasised “know” to indicate absolute knowledge.
My problem is the assumption that you (and Satanical) are making that religious beliefs come about before any philosophical search. Why do you necessarily assume that religious beliefs cannot come about as a result of a philosophical search? Is it not possible that a person, now religious, could have indeed started with an open mind? Why is this so difficult to comprehend? The only reason I can think of for why you two are having such difficulty with that idea would be a presupposition, a preconceived notion, an assumption on your part as to what being religious really means.
Open minds work both ways.
But I’ll play along.
Okay, I dare. What’s the next step in our philosophical search?
I’m not saying this at all—at least that was never my intention. I would respect such a person, at least his/her search for truth were an earnest attempt
First of all, it’s your philosophical search. I could be trying to mislead you, I could be a servant of the devil. But if you understand and agree with the steps I present, then go on.
Also, are you serious about this? Do you want to find the truth? Do you want to question your current beliefs? Or is this just a philosophical game for you?
The next step is a large one, and took me almost a year (I used to be a christian)—and only because I had a lot of time to study. It’s time to question your beliefs. The best place to start is probably with the beliefs you are most uncertain about, because questioning the most fundamental ones may be too difficult/painful in the beginning (but would possibly lead to faster progress). You probably don’t want to question the existence of God at this point, for instance. The belief you choose should also not be one that naturally follows from a more fundamental one—then you have to take care of the more fundamental one first.
When you have picked a place to start, you want to seek out the best arguments both for and against your belief. Let’s assume that the first belief you want to question is related to christianity. The internet is full of information, and is all you need to get started (and can probably take you most of the way). Most of what you will find, from both camps, will be nothing but biased drivel. So seek out only the best atheist and the best christian apologetics sites you can find, and start evaluating their arguments. One site to check out could be http://www.religioustolerance.org/, which seem to presents different views in an honest and direct manner. You should probably go on to more specifically atheist and christian sources as you progress.
If you tell me a bit about your beliefs, I could probably help you a bit on your way. Do you consider yourself a liberal or a conservative christian? Do you belong to any specific denomination? Do you believe in the Bible as the 100% accurate word of God? etc. If you want to tell me your choice of belief, even better. As long as you are in control all the way, there should be nothing to worry about.
Hi, Celox. Listen, I appreciate the advice and I know it’s meant well. I was perhaps being a bit disingenuous where I can see I shouldn’t have been. You are well-intentioned and honestly trying to be helpful.
The fact is, I have done all those things you have mentioned. Although I’ve always been interested in the “larger†questions of life, I started my search (with what I think is as open a mind as one can possibly hope to have) in earnest about 12 years ago. I am still on it. I am sure I will always be on it. And thus far it has led me - with me using the tools of the philosopher, using logic, rational thought, and critical thinking - to a decidedly theological position.
That you would offer your suggestions - well-intentioned though they may be - highlights what I perceive to be a glaring problem among non-believers, and that is this idea that one cannot attain a theological position through a philosophical search. Why must non-believers denigrate believers and make sweeping generalizations that they must all be non-thinkers, brainwashed, and completely blinded by faith?
As I tried to tell Satanical, the long and storied history of philosophy is brimming with great philosophical minds (minds much better than ours, my friend) who have reached theological conclusions about the universe.
Can you see that, from where I sit, your suggestions (well meaning, of course) come across as patronizing and condescending?
No, because you never told me what you had done. You never made the claim that you had started with an open mind, before now. I told you my assumptions about you, and you never corrected me. I’ll trust your words that you started with an open mind. Although I have to believe that you made a wrong turn somewhere. How can I not? With all the glaring problems I have found with christianity. But that is subjective judgement, and I accept your views, as well as your claim that you have really thought them trough.
You seem like an intelligent guy, and I’m sure you’re a capable philosopher. I’d still be interested in hearing your theological position. For instance, why your search led you to Christianity, rather than a more pure form of theism.
For instance a belief in a god, but not in the Bible as his unaltered message. When having to defend the Bible one makes it very difficult for oneself, IMHO.
Anyway, perhaps the person in questions find the arguments for a god compelling, but the Bible a mess. He would probably believe in a god he admits to know very little about…
Hi, celox. Time unfortunately does not permit me to walk you through the many twists and turns of my 12-year trek. And that’s not why I’m here anyway. I just wanted to address the prevailing attitude among non-believers that I mentioned above. I am at a loss as to why the assumptions made about believers are what they are. I have never sought to convince others here of my (theological) beliefs. I am just here to defend the idea that a philosophical search can lead to theological implications, as has been clearly demonstrated by great minds throughout the history of philosophy. That this history is ignored (or denied) is a mystery to me. You have given me the opportunity to make my point. No hard feelings at all.
I don’t see how dealing with real issues that non-philosophers actually find perplexing is a limitation. Spending too much time contemplating whether or not murder is bad or chairs exist seems like a form of paralysis to me. And it’s not that I don’t examine these things, I just examine them from a slightly different perspective than you apparently do.
If the Moon is a pizza, I'll never end up having a slice, either. Now, if someone could convince me that the moon's being a Pizza, or the world's being a computer simulation where actually viable positions worth considering, and not just "You don't know it's NOT true, so then maybe it is!" then that might be a different story. What I'm saying is, the proper default position is to believe what comes naturally. Sure, one can investigate to see if there is good reason to move from those natural positions, but I see no justification in 'starting out' (whatever that means) in a state of doubt about them.
You can't. If you question [i]everything[/i], you have no standard by which to compare things to. In the end, you must take somethings as true by default, such as your immediate memory, your comprehension of rationality, the reliability of simple induction. Again, my point here is that it's acceptable to take these things for granted because you can't [i]help[/i] but do it as a human, and we are humans doing philosophy.
So actions have no moral value unless they involve you personally? That seems odd, but congratulations on having a system, at least.
I see an equivocation here. There's a difference between questioning something, or doubting something 'for the sake of argument', and acutally [i]being in a state of doubt[/i] about something. I can examine a claim about the existence of material reality, even though I happen to have a position on it's existence. My entire position on these matters can be summed up like this- In order for it to be acceptable to doubt something like the existence of material reality, a person must [i]first[/i] come across some reason or evidence that makes some alternative plausible. One has no obligation (even as a philosopher) to doubt what comes naturally to believe, just as a matter of course.
What is ‘allowing for the possibility’, exactly? I can pay lip service to the fact “Well you know, I might be wrong” which is of course possible. Perhaps we misunderstand each other. I understand you to be saying that the proper stance for a philosopher is to be able to say with a straight face “I don’t know whether or not there is a material world” (in the honest, "I have no belief one way or the other’ sense, not in the rhetorical ‘I acknowledge my possibility for error’ sense), until their investigations lead them to a definitive conclusion one way or the other.
Yes, almost certainly. That fact alone is why I propose the approach that I do- acknowledging that people have default beliefs that are very hard to change, and believing on them as a default state, forces a skeptic to do more than devise scenarios; they must strive for plausibility.
If I meet a woman, I’ll assume she’s probably not a construction worker. Does it mean that she couldn’t possibly be? No. Then what do I base my assumption upon? Experience and probability.
Why not, if you have rational arguments for them? It seems the most vocal promoters of christianity are also the most wacky ones—I for one would be happy about some balance.
People have different opinions of which philosophers were great. But I agree with you, there is no reason to rule out the possibility that an honest search can lead to a theological position. As long as I don’t know the details of that search, I can make no claims regarding its adherence to reason.
Yes, we have to prioritize our time. Some areas are more worthy of examination than others.
If you start out acknowledging that your “default position” might be wrong, you might become concious of subtle things that make the matter more worthy of direct investigation.
My perceptions are the only standard of absolute truth that I have. I make many assumptions, but they are not absolute truths. Do I act as if they were true? All the time. And you are right, I have to.
Morals are entirely subjective, so I define the ones that suits me best.
Yea, you have misunderstood me. I deal in probabilies, never absolutes. I use my most dependable tools (logic and reason) to determine the probability of my beliefs, and then follow the ones I find most probable—while still keeping the possibility open that they could be wrong.
I think we basically agree on the important stuff, then. My approach to matters like “Does the Material World exist?” is to say “Of course is does, why would I think otherwise?” Not because I don’t admit the possibility of an error, but because I think we have very very good reasons to believe in the existence of the material world, and because I don’t think criticisms of the belief very often rise to a level such that the question even need to be looked at very hard (Berkeley aside).
The important thing to acknowledge is that a philosopher is allowed to have knowledge from sources other than argument. A person is quite justified in saying “I believe in X because a human cannot function without believing in X”, and in the absense of a good argument for non-X, that belief is sound. I think what gives skepticism so much power over some folks is that they make the mistake of thinking that if they can’t argue for something conclusively, it must not be true (or rational to believe, at least). I consider things like morals, material reality, and free will all to be things that need not be argued for before they can be believed- which is not to say that they can’t be disbelived, if they are disproven.
I require of myself that I have arguments for every belief I hold. Does this put me at any disadvantage? Quite the opposite I would think. There exist things—such as conciousness (or “the observer”)—that I know exist, but still can’t logically explain. But whenever I can, I try to explain things using logic and reason.
Morals
What we percieve as moral is easiest and most logically explained for what it is, subjective. Therefore I don’t believe in absolute morality.
Material Reality
The simplest explanation for our percieved reality is that it actually exist. Therefore I believe in a material reality.
Free Will
All I need to explain my human experience is an observer and a machine. No free will is required. And as I see freewill as inherently illogical, I don’t believe it exist.
