I don’t know about you, but I get tired of hearing arguments such as free will vs determinism, mind vs matter, religion vs science, environment vs heredity, etc., etc., etc.! None of these arguments can be resolved simply because the bifurcations, antinomies and polarities we imagine in order to argue them do not exist in the natural world. And it is from evolutionary processes in the natural world that get our ability to think at all. Body evolves into mind. Mind evolves into spirit. Our experience of motion defines all that we know both qualitatively and quantitatively.
Are there thinkers here who do not worship Hume, Descartes, Kant, Putnam and Nagel and fall into their traps of argumentation with no possible resolution?
I am presently playing in my head with the idea of Nationalism, while watching series 5 of 24 I was stuck at some of the frankly abhorrent things some of the characters do (including Jack Bauer), all in the name of ‘America’ and started questioning my own deep rooted love of Britain.
It is irrational, it is childish, it is the antithesis of what I believe in.
But it is necessary. It allows me to fit in, to have something in common with the person on the bus next to me, in the pub, at work. I can see the immense social need for it, and the huge social problems Labour have caused by eroding it, in the name of the laughable aim of multi-culturalism (which I have come to view as perfectly rational, but totally sociopathic).
It is part of my maturing world view, almost an Orwellian doublethink, one that allows me to appreciate Hume, Descartes, Kant, Putnam and Nagel, but to ultimately realise that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
But I think the flaw lies not in the arguments, but in human perception, that we are bound by a mind that ‘sees’ only in certain dimensions and in certain ways.
Matt,
Good points. If subjectivity is an interior trap, is the golden mean of answers to epistemological questions nothing more than opinion?
Isnt everythig merely opinion as soon as we interpret and idea, fact etc we have therefore put our own imprint on it and then it becomes opinion open to belief or disbelief by the masses. Its is only when the majority of the masses agree on the point is it then confirmed as fact.
Not necessarily (if I understand you correctly 
)
see response to lynda-anne.
Al, “see response to lynda-anne” ???
Al,
I don’t see your response to lynda-anne here. All I’m saying here is that there is another side to the story. The line of philosophy I gave is summarily refuted by Nietzsche, Dewey, Rorty, that is, if one chooses to believe that we exist in a state of flux and that our sense of knowing, which is brain-produced, evolves with the organ that produced it.
Surely facts don’t depend on consensus of opinion to be facts?
E.g. Evolution via natural selection is a theory that is almost certainly fact by all the available and ever mounting evidence, but it is probably NOT accepted by the majority of human beings on this planet. Doesn’t make it less true.
Some polarities, such as nature v nurture, mind v matter, free will v determinism are surely as Ierrellus describes, in that the truth lies somewhere between in each case, but this is surely not necessarily so for all such distinctions, or indeed for the nature of the truth WITHIN such dichotomies. However abstract or subjective the groupings or classifications of knowledge and understanding, some things are true, and others false.
What do you define as “knowing” is it relation to ones self or knowledge in general.
I find that to be incorrect enough of the masses believe in natural selection for it almost certanly be proved to be fact. Did we not once believe whole heartedly that the solar system revolved around us, that the world was flat, that the body was governed by the 4 humours. Fact is transitional as our knowledge develops so do the “facts” and I belive that facts are not absolute truths.
lynda-anne,
Read Uexkull’s theory of “umwelt” (google) and decide what of “knowing” is universal.
I found that to be true ( have not read it) just wanted to know how you interpreted the term.
I found that knowing to me is a state in the middle of truth and lie that i have arrived at through thought but it is ever changing and open to re-evaluation at any time.
I wish that were true lynda-anne, but you will find that evolution is not accepted throughout much of the world and is even dismissed by around half of the population of the USA.
there is a difference between fact and belief. Just because we once thought the earth was flat, or that the earth was the centre of the universe, or that mentally ill people were possessed by demons, NEVER made these things fact, even though we believed them to be.
Science is always open to new knowledge and refutation, which is why there are theories, but from such do come facts, such that the earth is in fact round, and does in fact orbit the sun. These truths will not change until the properties of our solar system changes.
thats what im saying that its all belief, facts are ever evolving at at the present time they are belived to be true. there is no absolute truth. Do you not think that the thought that the earth was round in ancient times was ludicrous and they thought the the earth was flat and believed it to be factually true.
I do think that our sense of knowing is limited by our current levels of biological, intellectual and cultural evolution, and that there is an inevitable subjectivity to this knowing, but I also believe that there are truths out there to be known, some of which we already know. Some of these truths may be relevant only to ourselves or our group or our species, other truths are universal to all.
But here today, the Earth IS round. This is no longer a belief, it is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH, based on evidence, not belief.
Al i agree with the sentiment that at the moment our level of understanding could reach a glass ceiling as such but as for the truth and facts they are transitional and never absolutes, they are just agreed upon as absolutes to enable decisions to be made but this idea sometimes gets lost in the agreeing part. Too much effort is put into the result of the argument and it is forgotten that in the scheme of things tha rgument does not really matter.
Are you declaring that to be an absolute truth? (sorry, couldn’t resist it 
)
I agree that we often have to make decisions based on our current understanding, that we have to agree a consensus on many things where there is disagreement, and that we often lose sight of the fact that we don’t know all the facts.
but that does not mean that all things are equally true.
The argument does matter, because if we are not careful ignorance will win the argument over apathy, and then we will all be very sorry.
There are absolutes. E.g. Either the earth is round or it’s not, either there is a god or there isnt. We can argue the toss, but there is a right answer in such cases.
Ierrellus and Lynda-Anne (&Matt)
I am very interested in what you say.
I have tried to gain knowledge from so many contrasting sources, and am aware of how incomplete and subjective it can be (buddhism has been very helpful in this realisation). I think science has contributed so much to our knowledge. I remember reading Richard Dawkins describing about a fellow Professor of Science who wept with joy because his lifetimes work had been shown to be fundamentally flawed, so happy was he that knowledge was being advanced. But science has also had its fair share of pedantics, just as has philosophy, in my experience.
Arguments are pointless if both sides are not open to new understanding.
Can you please recommend some good reading for me (apart from ‘umwelt’ already mentioned, which I will look into much deeper as a matter of course) relating to what we have been discussing here?
cheers