What is our authority for philosophy?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

it has been said that philosophy is the drive toward
the ‘‘truth’’… but as I have shown, there doesn’t seem to be
a universal, one size fits all truth that engages everyone…
and if there were a one size fits all truth, how would we know?
a universal truth must by its very definition, fit everyone…
and what truth do you know is universal, fits everyone,
everywhere, at all times? I do not know of such a truth that
would fit everyone, everywhere, at all times… for that is the
definition of a universal truth…

as we cannot find a truth that fits everyone, everywhere, at all times,
that means we are living in an ‘‘ad hoc’’ universe…

an example of this ‘‘ad hoc’’ universe we live in, in the bible,
it says, and it is not written in ambiguous language,
‘‘thou shall not kill’’ it is fairly clear and pretty straight forward…
and yet, there are dozens of ‘‘ad hoc’’ additions to this fairly
straightforward commandment…

Thou shall not kill…unless it is for one’s own self protection,
or that shall not kill, unless it in the defense of one’s country…
One shall not kill, and under that guise, people defend
ending abortions, and yet, those exact same people who use
thou shall not kill, also have proposed to kill abortion doctors
and women who commit abortions… those two exceptions
are nothing more than ‘‘ad hoc’’ of the moment choices…

this question really revolves around the real question, which
is under what authority do we choose for or against abortions?
and this question lies under for everything that ILP is engaged with
right now… the question of the moment is homosexuality…
and under what authority do we accept or ban homosexuality?

Now, quite often the authority listed in banning homosexuality is
history… that is the authority we list in attempts to ban homosexuality…
(or one of the authorities used today, there are others, but we will let
them be for the moment)

and there is a real problem in using history to base our judgements
on, using history is a lot like using the bible to make judgements,
in that we can almost always find exceptions to every single rule,
both in the bible and within history… ‘‘thou shall not kill’’
there are literarily dozens of exceptions to the ‘‘rule of god’’
and I have listed a few of them…and these exceptions are
really ‘‘ad hoc’’ rules… and one of the other problems with
using history, is that you can find exceptions to every single
rule in history… one might say, there has never been a
homosexual society, and yet, for example, the Sparta society/state
did seem to have a very strong homosexual aspect to it…
the law didn’t punish homosexuals because it was expected
within that society/state… and it keep up the laws that expected
men to also engage with women in procreation…
it was, quite literarily a dual society/state… homosexuals
had a very clear role within the Sparta society/state, but
procreation was also demanded…

so, within history itself, we can find justification for virtually
every single act of human behavior… for example, a society
based on human sacrifice and bloodletting was the Aztecs…
the number of people they sacrificed totaled into the millions…
is that the society/state we are basing our own society/state on?
History is a lie we used to justify our own actions to ourselves…
and within history, we can find/justify virtually every single action
we make… both collectively and individually…
you say tomato, and I say potato and historically, we
both be right… and that is both the beauty and curse of
history… virtually every single behavior can be justified
by the use of history… it just depends on whose history
we decide to use… if we use the authority of Sparta,
then we can easily justify homosexual behavior within
the state, if we use another source, then we can justify it
that way, but that leaves us the question of why this source
of history we can use, but not that source? why do we choose
this version of history as opposed to that source of history?
Why do we select this spiritual history, which is the bible,
opposed to another source of spiritual history, the Veda’s
of India? What makes one right and the other wrong?
and that answer is ‘‘ad hoc’’ of the moment.. because
there is virtually no way we can decide what spiritual history
is the right one and what spiritual history is the wrong one…
one might say, well, this is a Christian nation and thus
we should be using Christian sources, and yet, we can find
in the bible vast number of actions that can be interpretated
a number of different ways… for example, the bible
clearly advocates for incest… and it show us in different ways,
for example, lot’s daughters, get him drunk and have sex with him
by which they create the Moabites and the Ammonite Nations…
and King David’s son, Amnon rapes his half-sister… are these
the actions we should be basing our own lives on? we simply
pick and choose what actions are applauded and which actions
are condemned… which are ‘‘ad hoc’’ choices…

the question here is which authority are we using to judge or
advocate for certain beliefs or actions? we don’t seem to be able
to use the bible as it has very contractionary beliefs and actions,
as does history… and where does that leave us?

One might suggest, exactly as HOA use it, community standards…
and yet, that too is flawed…mind you, I live in an HOA community,
and their only concern is to hold up and increase the value of the
condo’s… that is the final arbiter of HOA decisions…
How much can I sell my condo for? there are no
other factors that an HOA uses… so, according to HOAs,
the final judge of community standards is money…
what a sad commentary, the use of standards is that
standards are tied into money…

So, it seems that our use of standards, the means we make
judgements, is deeply flawed because we have no means
of knowing which standards are the ‘‘right’’ standards…
Which standards are the one we choose or which standards
we deny…

So, another popular topic currently on ILP, is homosexuality…
it is considered to be wrong or immoral, but which
standard are we to use? community standards, which
community? On historical standards, again, which historical
standards are we using? on standards based on authority?
which authority are we using and why that authority and not
another authority? We can certainly cherry pick standards
such as the bible and come up with a solution that we approve of,
but it is clearly not a universal, one size fits all standards…

You have one value and I have another, so, which authority
do we use to judge who is right? as there is no universal, one
size fits all standards, therein lies the problem… we cannot
trust this way of using authority because we can just as easily
find justifications for any standards we can speak about…

So, what is our authorities within philosophy? Do we use
Plato or Socrates or Augustine, or Kant or Hegel or Kropotkin?
and why that authority and not another…

Kropotkin

2

'towardS’. Didn’t read past that word.

3

why should there be an authority? we should all think for ourselves, no? the “truth” should be different for everyone; we shouldn’t have to follow one authority figure in the search for the truth.

it’s either that or we make the ultimate figure of authority me.

1 Like
4

michelle:
why should there be an authority? we should all think for ourselves, no? the “truth” should be different for everyone; we shouldn’t have to follow one authority figure in the search for the truth.

it’s either that or we make the ultimate figure of authority me…

K: the basis for the ending of Abortions lies within the authority
of the bible… is that the authority you also subscribe to?
I say that we should have easy, legal abortions, and you say the
opposite?, so, who has the final word in the matter? at some
point, we need to have some collective values and beliefs,
and who/what are they? How are we to judge such a matter?

Kropotkin

5

i don’t believe in god or the bible lol

and with abortion, i believe preventative actions should be prioritised but abortion should still be a right.

many people agree that murder should be illegal and that taking what isn’t yours should be illegal etc. when it comes to such values, i think it should be collective.

however at some point, we should start to come up with our own ideas. in an ideal society, everyone believes that murder is immoral and we should treat everyone with respect. however when it comes to how you view reality outside of these social constructs, there should be… independence i suppose.

6

These people cannot see the completely obvious, to me, contradiction and hypocrisy.

Once again, “peter Kropotkin” is absolutely oblivious to the Fact that it could never recognise and see the actual many universal Truths, which do actually exist, because of its ‘currently’ held onto belief and presumption here.

By the way, contrary to another belief of yours, you have NOT shown there doesn’t seem to be a universal, one size fits all truth that engages everyone, at all.

By the very simple Fact that everyone could agree with and accept it, of course.

And again, I use the ‘could’ word for the very specific reason I have already mentioned a few times previously. Some people ‘will’ disagree just for the sake of disagreeing. But, if everyone ‘could’ agree with and accept something through a logically reasoned discussion or perspective, then this is when one KNOWS, for sure, that they have reached what is called a ‘universal truth’ and which I just call ‘Truth’, with a 'capital ‘T’. Again, I do this to distinguish what could be agreed with and accepted by everyone from what personal or individual ‘truths’, which could only be agreed with and accepted by one or some only.

I KNOW, for sure, what so-called “truth” does not fit and engage everyone. The alleged “truth” that states and claims there are no universal truths that engage everyone. This so-called “truth” does not fit everyone. Therefore, the fact that this so-called “truth” does not engage and fit everyone is an actual irrefutable universal Truth itself. (Unless, of course, you already have ‘the proof’ that ‘your truth’ here fits and engages ‘me’. Do you have ‘the proof’ for your belief and claim here?)

Also, do not forget that if you did have ‘irrefutable proof’ for ‘your claim’ here, then it therefore would have to be a ‘universal truth’, itself. Again, which would be a self-contradictory claim and belief of yours.

I also KNOW, as well, absolutely for sure, many, many other Truths that fit and engage everyone perfectly, which you would call ‘universal Truths’.

Okay, which means that what you claim is ‘a truth’ here, does not fit and engage everyone. And, as I have pointed out and mentioned before, if one does not have a ‘sound and valid argument’ for their claims and/or beliefs, then any attempt at presenting ‘an argument’ is really not worth doing so.

LOL If ‘you’, supposedly, cannot find the Truths that fit and engage everyone, then this never means that others have not.

Also, and again, as I have already pointed out and mentioned, while one has ‘a belief’, that belief will not allow them to see, hear, and experience anything that is contrary or opposes ‘that belief’.

Until you define what the words ’ “ad hoc” universe ', means or refers to, exactly, to you, I will not read the rest of what you wrote.

7

To me, there are no actual ‘shoulds’ in Life, but there is ‘an authority’ that exists anyway.

In almost, if not all, every human body, there are thoughts. And, at times, it could be said people are ’ thinking for “themselves”,’ but it could also be said, at other times, most people are just copying and following others’ thoughts.

Is this what is called a ‘universal truth’, here in this thread, or just ‘your own personal subjective truth’ only?

Every person will do their own thing in whatever they want to do it, however, in clarifying if one has obtained an actual ‘universal truth’, which is irrefutable to everyone, and thus fits and engages everyone, compared to just a ‘personal truth’, which could always remain Wrong or False, there is ‘one authority figure’ that everyone can go to for guidance, if they like in their ‘search for truth’.

Why would just one person even want to make “themself” the ultimate figure of authority? Especially when individually, a person is so fallible?

8

But, the basis for ending abortions does not lie in a book. The basis lies within ‘the thinking’ within human bodies.

Who/what they are, are ‘the ones’ everyone agrees with and accepts. But, because you believe, absolutely, that there are absolutely none, the only one stuck here is ‘you’ “peter kropotkin”.

Again, by the only One True Authority that exists.

9

this is a joke (my response lol)

10

@dualityofmichelle

You and others can choose anarchy in the rebellion or defiance of virtually everything, just don’t expect all of us to since many of us prefer social order over chaos.

I have seen the fruits of total chaos and anarchism myself, you won’t desire it for very long. Anarchists have to go experience it fully for themselves to understand the errors they profess to believe in.

:clown_face:

1 Like
11

What many call “social order” is just an unquestionable following, as can be recognised and seen in all of the other cults also.

1 Like
12

I am curious and will ask you, who or what is the ‘one authority figure’?

And where can we find those who were guided to and reached the truth that was searched for?

We are all sandwich
13

Not sure why noumenon is so hard for people to comprehend.
You have a reality outside your head. Thats your truth for template.
Something either is or is not. Something is either true or it isnt.

Saying that you cant comprehend the notion of a one size fits all truth, is saying that you dont think there is a reality we are all currently living in and which is the same for all of us.
And from a practical perspective that’d suggest you have no foundation in reality, aka you are completely lost and delusional.

14

Didn’t read that chopped up mess, but.

One cool thing about the Bible is … we kept the receipts. Don’t get it twisted.

Nuther cool thing is tracking prophecy & fulfillment like time non-traversing scientists.

But we all have it in us the decide what is right (Luke 12:47)—not “in our own eyes” (Judges 21:25) but … taking into account every person impacted by our choice. That’s why the Golden Rule is in every major culture in history.

Why do some people prefer subjectivism to Christianity?
15

Everyone together, as One.

What everyone, and/or this One, agrees with and accepts is the authority figure that KNOWS what is True and Right, in Life.

And, some people could say something like, “But what if everyone agrees with or accepts something that is NOT true and right, in Life?”

To which I would respond with something like, “Is there anything you could imagine that is not true or right but which absolutely everyone could agree with it and accept it?”

For, if there is, then I would certainly like to be one of the first to know what that is, exactly.

This occurs and happens through the One and only Mind, where empathy and the ability to KNOW what others are thinking and feeling comes from as well.

See, if any thought one has, and one considers, for example, ‘Could everyone agree with and accept this?’ and ‘the answer’ comes back, ‘Yes’, then that is WHERE human beings find the One, who here is ‘we’ are calling ‘one authority figure’.

Another way of where you find the One who KNOWS is if any thought a person about what is true and/or right, and they ask ‘the question’, ‘Did this thought, (belief or assumption), come from just my own personal Past Experiences only, and would it come if ‘i’ had any/everyone else’s Past Experiences also?’

See, if a view of what is thought, presumed, or believed to be what is true or right came from one’s own or some people’s only Past Experiences, then that ‘view’ could be False or Wrong. Only when absolutely everyone could agree with it and accept it, then ‘you’ KNOW, for sure, that it is what is actually irrefutably True and Right, in Life.

For an example of HOW to determine:

What is True, in Life.

The ‘view’, which some people presume and/or believe is true, “We need money to live”, is ‘a view’ that some/many adults have. To verify its Truthfulness -

  1. Did this view only come because of my own individual Past Experiences? Yes.
  2. If i had lived different Past Experiences, then would i have the exact same view? No.
  3. Could everyone agree with and accept this view? No.

P1. Human beings lived for hundreds of thousands of years without money. P2. Human beings can and do still survive and live without money, in the ‘current’ days. C. Therefore, what the irrefutable Truth in Life is exactly: human beings do not need money to live.

EVERY one can agree with it, and NO one can refute it, so EVERY one can accept it also.

Through the ‘one authority figure’, everyone as One, the Truth of things can be and are found.

What is Right, in Life.

The ‘view’, which some people believe or presume is right, “We need to eat meat to live”, is ‘a view’ that some/many adults have. To verify its Rightfulness -

  1. Did this view only come because of my own individual Past Experiences? Yes.
  2. If i had lived different Past Experiences, then would i have the exact same view? No.
  3. Could everyone agree with and accept this view? No.

P1. Human beings have lived without eating meat.
P2. Human beings, obviously, had to kill animals and eat meat, once upon a time, but they do not ‘currently’ have to. As every so-called “vegetarian” has shown and proved irrefutably True.
C. Therefore, what is Right in Life exactly is: If we do not need to kill animals for food, then killing and eating animals is what is Wrong, in Life.

Now, if absolutely anyone would still like to ‘try to’ claim and/or argue that it is all right to kill animals and eat meat, then for ‘morality’ or what is Right in Life issues or discussions, then ‘we’ can also use the clarifying question, 'Would ‘we’ want it done to ‘us’, if ‘we were in their shoes’?, as some say.

As an animal is a living thing, and by nature ALL living things want to keep on living. The simple Fact that ALL living things seek out food/nutrients and fight off being killed shows that ALL living things, for a lack of a better ‘want’ to keep living and surviving. So, Honestly, if ‘you’ were an animal, human or not, then would ‘you’ want to be killed?

If no, then this is another thing that makes killing animals Wrong. If a ‘behavior’ is NOT Right by all, then it is NOT an all-right behaviour. Therefore, it is a Wrong behavior and what is Wrong in Life.

And, if anyone still thinks or believes that it is all right to kill animals and eat them, then which animals are okay and all right to kill and eat and which ones are NOT, exactly?

Remember, human beings are just another animal.

Also, do not forget that if you were brought up in another country and/or ‘cult/ure’, like, for example, in “india” as a “hindu”, in “afghanistan” as a “muslim”, or in “america” as a “christian” are ‘you’ going to ‘now’ say it is perfectly okay and all right to kill and eat cows, pigs, and dogs in each of those upbringings?

So, if ‘the views’ that ‘you’ ‘currently’ have, possess, and hold come from your own personal Past Experiences, only, then, just maybe, they are not as ‘right’ and/or as ‘good’ as you had first envisioned.

If what you ‘currently’ believe or presume ‘good’ or ‘right’ would be different if you had a different upbringing and so had different Past Experiences, and NOT everyone could agree with and accept your ‘current’ view, belief, or presumption, then, well to me anyway, this is sure sign that ‘it’ is actually NOT a view that aligns with what is actually Right, in Life.

Again, when I look to what EVERY one, as One, for guidance, I find and obtain ‘the knowledge’ of what is irrefutably True and Right, in Life.

16

According to biblical scriptures, God tells of HIS will concerning the same thing that you are proposing above:

“making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth in him.” Eph 1:9,10.

Anew 1, what is your opinion about this?

17

Authority is merely a distinction that has consequences to those who pay mind to it.

It may be equally asked not “what is our authority?” but “but what is authority?” and “what is the absence of authority?” for it is quite evident those who argue for either side argue against the other thus the other is necessary for those who argue against it to justify their own attention threshold.

18

you may well equally asked any of the countless number of questions that could be made and created. But doing so, and not answering them, like what you just did here would be as worthless and as pointless as this post of “eognhoj7s” is.

19

‘We’ can tell if ‘the words’ come from God, Itself, or not. If any words prescribe to God, Itself, as being a “him”, for example, then ‘we’ can clearly tell that ‘those words’ are ‘the words’ of human beings, and most likely originated from the ‘males’ of the human species, and NOT from God, Itself.

The word “christ” and/or “jesus christ” refers to ‘children’, after all ‘the creators’ of ‘this world’ ‘we’ all live in are ‘adults’, and when things are taught and united through ‘children’ in the proper and Correct, or Right, way, in Life, then ‘those children’ who ‘grow up’ to become and be ‘adults’, and ‘creators’, will begin to create ‘the world’ that ‘we’ ALL Truly wanted and desired to live in, also known as Heaven, Utopia, Janna, Shamayim, Paradise, Nirvana, Valhalla, or any of the many other terms and names. you know ‘the one’ where ALL theologies aspire to and talk about.

And, WHERE ‘this place’ begins is here ‘on earth’, as it is in ‘Heaven’ or any of the other names that mean the exact same Thing.

Also, and this might be new, or controversial, to those who have a more “christian/biblica’” upbringing, but the word ‘afterlife’ does NOT refer to any individual ‘person’ and where they go ‘after’ ‘the body’ is what is Wrongly referred to as ‘dead’. What the word ‘afterlife’ actually refers to is ‘after’ this greedy, selfish, stressful, pollution-riddled’ and ‘war-torn’ world’ and ‘way of life’ is dead, gone, and on its way out, then the ‘after life’, the Heaven and such like ‘life’ can and will begin, and prosper.

There is One Universe, and One only, which is infinite and eternal, so there is NO place anywhere else anyone could even go, and in the days when this is being written, as far as ‘we’ human beings can tell and know, there is absolutely NO other place like ‘earth’. Out of everywhere ‘we’ know of in the Universe, which is admittedly very small, at the moment, earth is an actual, adult, human beings, have just made this Heaven-like place into a far more hell-like place.

BUT, this is and was a perfectly understandable reason WHY ‘this’ has happened in ‘the way’ that it has. Human beings learn best by ‘their mistakes’. So, when adults come around to admitting their Wrong doings, have their children’s best interest at heart, and seriously want to change for the better, without blaming absolutely anyone/thing else, then ‘they’ also will start to learn HOW they can and will start creating ‘the world’ - the True Heaven and such-like - that ‘their children’ deserve, and that EVERYone has wanted and desired all along.

20

If ‘we’ replace the “man-made-up” “his”, “he”, and “him” words with the word ‘God’, (if you like), and the first “Christ” word with all of ‘the prophets’ or ‘the ones’ where the ‘religious text’ has originated from, and replace the second “Christ” word with the ‘children’ or ‘human being’ words (after all ‘we’ human beings really are just ‘child-like’ in relation to ‘we’ are just here always learning about Life, and living, from Life, Itself), then i can share ‘my opinion’ in a much more easier, simpler, detailed, and provable way.

Younger human beings can actually teach more about what is actually Truly Right in Life, and in living, than older ones, at the moment when this is being written, can. Children do NOT need discipline. Adults need the ‘self-discipline’ to learn how to LISTEN TO children, so that adults can then learn HOW to teach ‘future children’ what is actually best, good, and Right, in Life.