Well, Mucius, the answer to that depends on which version of truth you are asking about. Maybe I can answer this way. I seek clarity. I seek an internally consistent view of the world, of life, of my life. I want that condition such that one belief doesn’t interfere with another. I want elegance. I do want the psychological effect of certainty, but that effect is not related to truth, it is related to intellectual integrity, in a broad sense. I want to say I honestly believe what I beleieve, which means “no cheating”.
Truth is the name we give that which we believe causes an certain complex emotional response within us. That suffices for me. It’s hard work to make this response as simple as possible - it is the philosopher’s task.
Well said and fair enough, faust. If I understand you correctly, it is harmony for the sake of harmony that you seek. That is, clarity and order based on nothing else more than its own precept, an internal state of balance so intimate that it rejects any other recursive leaning back for further certitudes.
Always better than showing up frilled with a host of incestuous cogitations, of course.
What you said reminded me of a scene from the Old Testament, where King David rejoices at the bringing of the Ark of the Covenant in Jerusalem. He goes into such rapture, that he casts off his imperial sheens and dances and sings around it like a child.
I should try it myself, although my internal bubble level is currently screwed up, still wondering why is it that people believe what they believe. The Ark is still outside the gates, as it is.
detrop - I speak loosely here. I mean that this word truth has many meanings, many connotations, many usages. I’ll say it this way - it has many synonyms that are not always synonyms of each other. Truth can be contingent, absolute, revealed, discovered, learned, metaphysical, perspectival, objective, subjective. The word can refer to that which is empirically verified, that which cannot be. It can be synthetic, analytic, transcendant, mundane.
I should have said “It depends upon the context, exactly what you mean - exactly what question you want me to answer”. It was a straightforward, honest question, and so I tried to answer in kind, with just a little wiggle room. Didn’t want the thread to go completely off track.
Mucius - No - not for it’s own sake. I defragged my computer today, not just to see the display all neat and tidy, although it was kind of fun watching it (I was pretty high). It makes my puter work more efficiently. Internal consistency is just more efficient. It takes less work to provide more power. I don’t drive with the parking brake on, I don’t let my rifle get rusty. Extra junk can be dangerous. Elegance of thought, simplicity, and the absence of elements that work against each other feeds the will to power, rather than a condition wherein our ideas feed off of this will.
I would like to take a moment to thank those who have generously contributed to this pointless and absolutely meaningless thread (being as that is mostly what is posted on the forums these days); which has been corrupted by faust with all due appropriated disrespect:
and most IMPortant, for his wonderful revelation of the missing Zarathustra chapter; [size=150]Imp![/size]
Having said that, I think this thread should be closed as its intended objective has been either fulfilled through illusion of its importance or by being completely debunked by the inconsideration of the naive.
Bravo Imp! Artfully accomplished with such high humor so imparted!
I missed this before. I doubt that you are going to convince me that Russell is intimately connected with Nietzsche but if you feel so inclined then by all means outline your arguments because it would be an unexpected one for me. As to the model of language and logic Russell employed - it hasn’t lasted to this day, it was battered by Wittgenstein, reformed by Austen, which was then battered by Derrida. Then Searle came along and, well, let’s not get into Searle. As Luis Felipe Scolari said about Pele: It’s best to do the opposite of everything Searle says.
The introduction that I’m thinking of is the one in my Routledge copy of the Tractatus. I’ve read it a couple of times - the first time I didn’t really get it. The second time I read it I did get it and realised that it’s forsaken.
Sorry to change the topic but I just wanted to answer the actual question originally being asked.
Firstly, I think the not punishing adultery part is referencing the ‘May he without Sin cast the first stone’ as I think was mentioned earlier. In other words leave them be and leave them for God to deal with.
The second one about not going to church is usually attributed to the Gospel of Thomas which used to be a sacred scripture with the rest of them until the church in their infinite wisdom decided that a scripture where Jesus tells Thomas that Jesus can be found anywhere (without using the church as a middleman) should not be part of the Bible.
More specificly the Gospel of Thomas said:
Jesus said: “Where there are [two, they are not] without
God, and when there is one alone, [I say,] I am with him. Raise
the stone, and there you will find me; cleave the wood, and there
I am.”
For those who are new, the Gospel of Thomas is part of the Apocrypha which is a collection of all the books that the church decided should not be part of the Bible.
Some of the less traditional christians consider the Apocrypha as a legitamate part of the Bible, and Russell also seems like that type of person.
On the other hand, if Russell does not approve of the Apocrypha, then in answer to the second part… I don’t know either.
saitd - Nietzsche and Russell? I’m not sure I’m up to it, today. Next time I’m feeling that ambitious, I’ll do a thread. It’s a stretch, which I think I already admitted. The actual link may be Faustism, meaning The World According to Faust, and having nothing to do with german alchemy.
I just can’t accept that Wittgy and Derrida have accomplished anything. I will read that link, for I do not possess that edition. I don’t think.
Oh, saitd - I think it’s clear that Derrida and Wittgy both have had a big effect on philosophical linguistics. I don’t mean to suggest otherwise, although I have reviewed, and understand that I was not clear. My comment that Russell is still essential was directed at philosphical logic, as well as mathematics as a whole. I think that his view of language, which is somewhat different, has suffered, but that he his still more right than wrong - my view. I will admit that he is somehow not the keenest critic - some of his criticisms of Frege are trivial, for example, and I suppose that some of his criticisms of Wittgy are as well. I’ll reread that.
But that is his main sin, I think, against Wittgy. I find Wittgy trivial, and I also find Russell’s critique sometimes trivial. He is a man of some significant flaws, I will grant. But the only flawless philosopher is Nietzsche. Mainly because his scope was so narrow - he kept within himself. Russell surely did not.
