[Fido2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head_case /img/forum/go_quote.gif Enough of my musings. I'm clueless about the above quoted statement if it refers to 'how I can know this'. How I can 'believe' this is a different order of knowing. Certainty is not knowing: 'obviously not'. Why not? Because certainty is a psychological state of mind; philosophical knowing, is independent of whatever psychological state of mind I happen to be in. Therefore, I need to guard myself, against 'believing' that I 'know', just because I 'feel' certain.

I agree. Feelings can be very misleading and deceptive. It comes back to the truth of what is. We can trust what we see in creation can we not? We KNOW we are here right now and talking to one another. The truth is here right now. BUT, one must be willing to trust what one hears. I am not talking about a blind leap of faith into a cosmic unknown. I am talking about a trust based on what you see, what you have lived, and then what you have HEARD from the One who created all that exists. It has been written down. What has been written is just as viable and more so than anything else we read and study in universities across the planet.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. "

I remember watching physicists talk about other dimensions that they had shown to exist mathematically but they absolutely could not put into words or visualize what these dimensions might be like. Fascinating...

 

[Lazarus Short]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judge Buff /img/forum/go_quote.gif As a devotee of Lazarus Long and Heinlein in general, I've always appreciated your user name. My great grandfather used to tell me that we aren't supposed to learn everything in this life. If we live "right" we'll get answers to a lot of "those" questions in the "by and by."

We do learn enough, see below. Thank you for appreciating my handle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fido2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am talking about a trust based on what you see, what you have lived, and then what you have HEARD from the One who created all that exists. It has been written down. What has been written is just as viable and more so than anything else we read and study in universities across the planet.

It is enough for me, in the way of answers, to find the core work of Ivan Panin, who found the incredibly complex mathematical coding which underlies the entire text of a certain Book - not ESL codes, but something far more sublime. He was one of the most brilliant men of his generation, and devoted fifty years of his life to that work. He proved that that Book could not have been written by any mere human mind. The conclusion is staggering and irresistible.

I guess that clinches it - my favorite philosopher: Ivan Panin.

 

[12Bass]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fido2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif No evidence? This universe is not "evidence"? Either this universe was created by an eternal being or it evolved out of nothing. If someone has a viable 3rd alternative I would love to hear it. Self serving intuition? you mean like teaching people that we evolved out of nothing(which is untenable), so as to make them hopeless and maleable so they can become pawns of the state? Communist China, Russia, Vietnam and Nazi Germany ALL taught(indoctrinated) their children into this "thinking" which has resulted in MILLIONS of dead human beings. This country has picked up these teachings and it is resulting in wars and bloodshed on a massive scale worldwide and it WILL get worse if we continue down this path. OK maybe history won't teach us anything .

How do you know that "either this universe was created by an eternal being or it evolved out of nothing"? That's a false dichotomy. At present, we simply do not know what the answer might possibly be, let alone have certainty about it being one of two choices. I don't know that to be true, nor do I presume it. For all I know, our Universe is one of a chain of universes, or created by aliens from another dimension. Thus, I have no firm conclusions and follow the empirical evidence only as far as goes, but no further. To go further than the evidence is to go into speculation, and, if history is any guide, self-serving human notions are unlikely to be correct about such things (see previous cosmologies for reference).

As to the other comments... non sequitur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fido2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't deal in unmoved movers or placeholders. I am talking about the REALITY of what we see and live and that logically this universe was created by an eternal being. This same eternal being made us and we are much more than protoplasm and flesh and bone. You cannot remain a free man if you teach and live lies. Further, every living thing on this planet works off DNA code which is a language. We humans communicate through written and spoken language. Is it far fetched to think that the Being who created this existence has communicated to us through written and spoken language? On the "proof" angle, can I or anyone else leave this plane of existence and grab this being by His shirt collar and drag Him in for questioning? What is most reasonable?

Huh? Not even sure what you're saying. A whole lot of assumptions there. What justifies all of these assumptions, metaphysical and otherwise?

 

[Head_case]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif Welcome back Head-Case. I see the complaint that analytic philosophy can be obsessed with method, and little much else; however, concern with method is appropriate in epistemology, anyway.

Hi Jonathan - Epistemology is more than method. Cheers.

Otherwise the correct term for this is 'methodology' or 'discours'. That epistemology is 'reduced to' method, does not mean this is all that it entails. This might be all 1st year students are taught these days however...but there is more ....!



Quote:

But if pedantry is the main complaint against the analytic tradition, then fluffy hand-waving is the main complaint against the continental tradition.

No it isn't. I don't care for pedantry, however I can be as pedantic as the next corpse if you like?

Can you wave a fluffy hand at the analytical tradition of Thomism, as much as you can at deriding Derrida? The pedants cannot grasp Thomism, let alone spell Aquinas or recognise, the spirit of the age, was not actually.... 40% alcohol as it is mostly in these forum discourses which take a post-modern stance, in questioning everything, as if it there was sense to be made.

The main complaint ~ if you like this term ~ is that the reductionist mind ...is incapable of dialogic thinking with any other discipline. Everything...must be filtered through reductions and bracketing, to the dominant Weltanschauung (world-view); that of the dominant substantivist view of philosophy; or a wildly perjorative philosophical method when contending with the philosophy of Being; and the Ontology of Being itself. The problem is not actually about the dialogue which would follow between different philosophical traditions: it is more about one's own disposition.

Maybe I take the view (just me; and not anyone else - not that I am advocating this view either), that most of us feel our way into a view, and then rationalise to defend it in a philosophical position secondarily.

This is an inauthentic position for me. For you, defining one's propositions and laying them out like the mangoes in a fruit store is imperative. I can see this; but I don't do it for the aforesaid reason. Hmm. Is this then, my secondary rationalisation, based on rationalising away the first motive then? Hmm indeed! Reason - there is much to be suspicious about it.

Or is there? Maybe it is the inauthenticity of Being; that universal condition of Man; with his inauthentic mind...which uses reason - and is not Reason itself, being only reason, found in the method to which analysis is reduced. However then...how can I know that I am being inauthentic, if I strive to know (authentically), by using a reductive method, the one I am taught? If the analytical tool will teach me the way to know things...can it know the nouminal thing in itself? I would have no object to this point (perhaps)...however once that threshold crosses into an extrapolation of the reductionist analysis of Being; the line is crossed. Boy will I be cross! You should be too. If sequentially, Being is discounted of its Esse by10% and doubly more on sequential reductions. This is a problem.

I can try a different tact to explain. One couched in medieval language. I tell you then: a spirit of openness has much to commend itself. With this spirt of openness, their hearts were able to know. Without this spirit of openness: hardened. If this premise (yes - it can be a premise if you like) is correct, then knowing through the head and knowing through the heart, offer two different versions of epistemologies: the modern reductionist will reject outright, the knowing of the heart, because he cannot see 'sense' in anything other than cognitivising sense-data through 'reason'. Equally, the schizoid British, prefer to analyse their sense-data as if they were empirical researchers. This method is harder to do, when the researcher himself, cannot distance his own human being from researching Being qua Being.

Quote:

As you and catharesis exemplify, much ink is spilt by Continentalists, but it's often difficult to know what you're saying.

[Pedantic On]Did you intend to spill ink writing "split" or "spilled"?

[Pedantic Off]

Yes yes yes...I agree. Language is difficult: language is shared. But not always. We have to work towards a common language, if we wish for language to be sensible. If we are out of dialogue to begin with, then we can only move in one direction, right? If I split my sides laughing at the ink that is spilled, what more can one spill, to move me from being out of dialogue? Being...cannot be, without a relation. What does this mean? Well, in the context of discourse as a 'Continentalist' with a 'Reductionist' - I guess ideological cannibalism would be one outcome?

Well this still is not dialogue. The word 'Self' requires for its construction - a word. Until these building blocks are assembled, maybe the difficulty in knowing what an Other is saying (to you); lies manifold:

1. in the complexity of the idea (i.e. if you have no philosophical model to 'hang' an understanding for, then you would be doomed to not understanding

2. in the absence of a Weltanschauung yet with another philosophical model (for example; if I were a materialist or substantivist), a nonsensical understanding.

3. Others (but I'm kinda lazy at 1.45 am

)

Quote:

What propositions are being defended? What is the argument? Do the conclusions follow from the premises? Are the premises true? Much Continental philosophy is not amenable to such analysis, and as such I'm not sure what to make of it.

Lol! You're probably correct then. There are 18 pages+ of contributions. Did you have some version of Continential Philosophy in mind? Yes - it is true that Ontology and Being is not amenable to analysis of the reductive kind, without being reduced to something like ... philosopher's rubble.

Any kind of proposition starting off from the Thomist Age of philosophy would do me: take your pick

It's interesting that you seem to bracket me within this spirit of Continental Philosophy though. I wonder who does who the greater injustice; you - calling me a Continental Philosopher, or me, calling you a reductionist?

PS - I live on a tiny island where every man is an island

 

[Head_case]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fido2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree. Feelings can be very misleading and deceptive. It comes back to the truth of what is. We can trust what we see in creation can we not?

Maybe Truth and feelings are independent?

I haven't worked out what truth is. For me, it seems to be a 'pick of the lesser evils', rather than any concrete factual a priori.

Of course we can trust in what we see in creation! 100% certainty!

Oops - maybe you weren't talking about man's 'creation' then?

I can't remember who it was who synthesised the Cosmological Argument with the Argument for Design. In your view...is it possible to know truth ... a priori?

Kierkegaard took the view that echoes Kantian efforts to destroy knowledge; his rejection of his own 'proofs' were a result of being gifted with a powerful dialectical mind. Maybe such 'trust' is not worth our while: 'trust' is only as good as the object we invest in. Can 'creation' be disintegrated under our stewardship? Can global warming take place, and destroy our planet? If there is the mere hint of a possibility, then it is possible...that we might not trust what we see ... in creation. Our trust...may be misplaced. This would be a tragic situation since we have no other earthly home to place our trust in. Which I guess is why some invest in the Empirici Caelorum ....


Quote:

We KNOW we are here right now and talking to one another. The truth is here right now. BUT, one must be willing to trust what one hears. I am not talking about a blind leap of faith into a cosmic unknown. I am talking about a trust based on what you see, what you have lived, and then what you have HEARD from the One who created all that exists. It has been written down. What has been written is just as viable and more so than anything else we read and study in universities across the planet.

I hear what you're saying. Somewhere along the lines of my perfect childhood and Caesarian delivery without any trauma, I became a sceptic.

Am I really here? Or are you? Maybe this is a pre-recorded post - see the ones I did earlier

I hear what you're saying about being willing to 'trust' what one hears. Again - maybe it depends on the calibre of the object in which you trust. Who are you 'trusting', that makes your trust worthwhile, to hand-over?
What criterion lead this trust, to be surrendered?

For example: If I believe, that I live my life as a fish, however unfortunately for me, by dint of being a vegetarian, I am forced to live my life as a fish out, as a man on soil, the phenomenological structure of such a thought...is called 'a belief'. Where will my belief lead me? I hear others tell me that 'I smell like a fish' when I don't wash'. Others tell me that 'they eat fish'. Maybe I *feel* frightened by this. Maybe this fear...is that Kierkegaardian terror of .... annilhilation. Maybe I start getting a little fearful for myself, when others say I talk like a slippery fish. All this 'sense-data' feedback ...feeds into my belief, that I am a fish ... in danger.

Then as a fish in danger....I am in need....of saving from the deep fry. To where can I run, where the sushi-eaters will not find me? To where can I hide, where none other can spot me with wasabi? To where can I flee, where others will not descale me along the mountain rise?


This is problematic: I have a few options however.

1. I need salvation from the fish fry.
2. There are 10,000 fishmongers - all of whom are calling out to me: "Here boy! Here boy! Jump into my frying pan! You'll be safe here!"
3. I could just lay down and die: stop thinking, and wait till the crap hits the pan.

Philosophically speaking: the 'form' of my belief - is not interesting here. The fact that I am a fish in danger can be 'suspended' from the other philosophical problems - namely:

1. Identity: who am I? What constitutes me? My beliefs? The feedback I get from others?
2. Concrete experiences: How do I account for this kind of *existential* anxiety - this real terrorising threat of annihilation? This is no mere physiological anxiety. It is a different order: the worse that fish can live.
3. Existential dilemma: I am a fish out of water. This is Tragic Fish Theory, a parallel to the Tragic Man of the 21st Century. What will I choose? Most importantly....how do I choose authentically?


"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. "

Thank you. Evidence can mislead. What is e-videre; seen from the 'concrete situation' I am in - is terrifying. I can buy into wholesale evidence, and convince myself that I have reasonable justification for my actions. Equally, if I were a fish of substance, then I would hope for more than the fish pan. If I were a man of substance, I would hope for more than Plato's fish to fry. I were not a vegetarian, I would fry some fish for you too. Then, you would taste and see, and feel 5,000 times fed better, knowing that you exist....not because of the fish I supplied...but because of the compassion of Being, which graces others with an image of Real Presence: participation in a relationship which vitalises Being. This is 'knowing': not classically 'epistemological'. 'Knowing', nonetheless.

And there is nothing fishy about that....

 

[12Bass]

To clarify: what I meant by 'placeholder' was that notions of unmoved movers or first causes represent empty explanations. They are empty because they don't have content as they say nothing about the attributes of the mover or cause, just simply that such a thing must necessarily exist. Without content, an explanation is empty of meaning. Similarly I could say that the Universe came from "beughystu", but such an utterance wouldn't be meaningful unless the term were comprehensible and contentful.

Rather than suggest false dilemmas, I merely admit my ignorance about the ultimate origins of the Universe. My epistemic methodology only allows me to believe what can be justified by empirical evidence. As I understand it, we're unable to know what might have happened before Planck time, so there's no evidence available for any sort of justified belief regarding what might have happened prior to that.

The future high energy physics experiments at the LHC may help shed light on questions regarding the behavior of matter near the moment of the Big Bang. However, I am willing to accept that such questions may never have satisfactory answers. My humility does not allow me to suppose that such answers must be accessible to humanity at all. What I'm not willing to do is jump to non-evidentially-based conclusions which postulate a whole other metaphysical realm.

 

[12Bass]

More info on the problem of determining what might have happened "before" the Big Bang:

The Planck Time and the Big Bang: The Instant of Creation in the Theory of the Early Universe

Quote:

Before the Beginning The universe begins with the big bang at time zero. It is natural to ask: what about before time zero? In the context of the big bang theory, there is no scientific answer to that question. That is, at least at this point, a fundamental limitation of the big bang theory. Some individuals asking that question provide a theological answer. Others accept that the question has no answer. A few are seeking a scientific answer, but they have not made much progress. The Planck Time The big bang theory also runs into a fundamental limitation during the first 1E-43 seconds (1E-43 refers to the power of 10 i.e. 1 times 10 to the minus 43rd power.) after time zero. This time is called the Planck time and arises from quantum mechanics. Without going into detail, quantum mechanics predicts that for anything smaller than a certain scale, chance and uncertainty win out over Newtonian determinism. We can therefore predict or measure the path of a planet or a baseball, but we can only estimate probabilities for an electron. Subatomic particles are smaller than Planck's scale, so chance and uncertainty dominate. This inability to predict or measure their paths results not from faulty instruments or techniques but from a fundamental limitation of nature. The Planck time is this limiting scale translated into time units. For times in the history of the universe less than 1E-43seconds, quantum mechanics limits our ability to predict or measure the conditions. Our history of the big bang must therefore begin at 1E-43 seconds. At this time the universe had an estimated density of 1E96times the density of water and an estimated temperature of 1E32 degrees Kelvin. Our universe began in an unimaginably hot dense state. From this initial state the universe began to expand in the big bang. Read more at Suite101: The Planck Time and the Big Bang: The Instant of Creation in the Theory of the Early Universe http://astrophysics.suite101.com/art...#ixzz0cNOlMHKT

 

[wink]

12Bass,
Where did this density of whatever 1E96 times the density of water and 1E32 degrees Kelvin come from?
The Big Bang is that once there was nothing - and then it exploded.
The whatever that is 1e96 times the density of water and 1E32 degrees Kelvin only came into existence after the nothing exploded, and then time and the Plank time came into existence - If you believe in the Big bang.

This is another "Just So" story devoid of any real evidence except an extrapolation back into time based on the conditions we observe today.

Saying it is so does not make it so......

 

[12Bass]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wink /img/forum/go_quote.gif 12Bass, Where did this density of whatever 1E96 times the density of water and 1E32 degrees Kelvin come from? The Big Bang is that once there was nothing - and then it exploded. The whatever that is 1e96 times the density of water and 1E32 degrees Kelvin only came into existence after the nothing exploded, and then time and the Plank time came into existence - If you believe in the Big bang. This is another "Just So" story devoid of any real evidence except an extrapolation back into time based on the conditions we observe today. Saying it is so does not make it so......

Where did the Sun come from? I don't know that for sure either... but I sure know that it's there!!! The point being that we don't have to know all of the answers in order to know some of them....

Not making any hard claims here.... Our present understanding of physics does not allow us to have any certainty regarding what might have occurred before Planck Time. The evidence leading up to it, however, is very compelling.

And what about those who make strong claims about unmoved movers? What justifies such claims?

 

[Fido2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12Bass /img/forum/go_quote.gif How do you know that "either this universe was created by an eternal being or it evolved out of nothing"? That's a false dichotomy. At present, we simply do not know what the answer might possibly be, let alone have certainty about it being one of two choices. I don't know that to be true, nor do I presume it. For all I know, our Universe is one of a chain of universes, or created by aliens from another dimension. Thus, I have no firm conclusions and follow the empirical evidence only as far as goes, but no further. To go further than the evidence is to go into speculation, and, if history is any guide, self-serving human notions are unlikely to be correct about such things (see previous cosmologies for reference). As to the other comments... non sequitur. Huh? Not even sure what you're saying. A whole lot of assumptions there. What justifies all of these assumptions, metaphysical and otherwise?

Please provide a viable 3rd alternative. We can sit here all day and just say "you can't know anything or prove anything" and put our fingers in our ears and go nah nah nah nah

What justifies your doubting of these assumptions? I have shown you logical simple arguments. Can I go out of this creation and interview the creator? No. We are stuck in a fashion are we not(on the ultimate proof angle)? We can sit here and weave sophistries all day...I am not interested in debate for the sake of debate.

I fully understand your materialist position. But there are just some things that cannot be proven beyond all shadow of anyone's doubt. One can always say "I doubt that", or "you will have to prove that more clearly" etc.. it's more of convincing than proving it seems to me. What makes the most reasonable sense...that's my ramble atm...heh

 

[Fido2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head_case /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is problematic: I have a few options however. 1. I need salvation from the fish fry. 2. There are 10,000 fishmongers - all of whom are calling out to me: "Here boy! Here boy! Jump into my frying pan! You'll be safe here!" 3. I could just lay down and die: stop thinking, and wait till the crap hits the pan. Philosophically speaking: the 'form' of my belief - is not interesting here. The fact that I am a fish in danger can be 'suspended' from the other philosophical problems - namely: 1. Identity: who am I? What constitutes me? My beliefs? The feedback I get from others? 2. Concrete experiences: How do I account for this kind of *existential* anxiety - this real terrorising threat of annihilation? This is no mere physiological anxiety. It is a different order: the worse that fish can live. 3. Existential dilemma: I am a fish out of water. This is Tragic Fish Theory, a parallel to the Tragic Man of the 21st Century. What will I choose? Most importantly....how do I choose authentically? "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. "

Excellent ramblings head_case! I would start by saying that logically there can be only ONE true explanation as to how this universe and all that is in it got here. There also can only be one true explanation as to how we got here, what's wrong with us and what our purpose is etc...

First, out of the many different explanations, we can weed out most by simply looking at their explanation of beginnings. Many say the universe is eternal in one form or another and/or we reincarnate...these can be ruled out immediately due to things we have already discussed above. IMO if your "system" is wrong from the start it cannot be trusted any further.
If you are really serious head_case, this is my advice to get you started.
It is my firm belief and assertion, and I believe it is not illogical, that the One who created all this has spoken to us and explained it to us. But He does not force on us. It's there if you want it.

I talked earlier about the language and coding in all of creation that exists in so many different ways. We are persons, beings with personality and we are all different. This cannot be explained apart from a personal creator....can it? Personality from the impersonal? Therefore it is NOT unreasonable to say that He has spoken to us. Also He could choose the method ... right? We talk all the time about "ramming down our throats" "forcing me to do this or believe that", "dogma" etc..ppsshhh...nothing is rammed or forced but we are all in a certain situation here on this planet. What is the answer then? After all these centuries of man's existence do we REALLY have no idea what's going on?
There can only be ONE true explanation...SEEK

 

[12Bass]

It is rather presumptuous for one to suppose that they fully understand understand another's views. My understanding of my own views is incomplete!

I doubt all sorts of assumptions because false conclusions invariably arise from false assumptions. Why do I have to posit any alternatives? I'm not even convinced that explanations regarding ultimate causes are necessarily logical, at least according to the current human understanding. Besides, empirical evidence beats arguments any time.

Let's do an epistemic test:

Is the number of stars in the Universe even or odd? This question has a very definite answer (at any given point of time), yet it cannot be answered accurately, because the necessary evidence is simply unavailable to us. Much the same, the evidence about pre-Big Bang states is also unavailable to us... even though there must be some definite answer.

Where evidence is unavailable it is wise to admit ignorance and continue the search.

Again, what I refuse to do is come to any firm conclusions in the absence of conclusive evidence.... yet this is exactly the approach found in mysticism.... belief in the absence of evidence. My epistemic methodology is too rigorous to allow such beliefs.

And perhaps it is once again worth pointing out that unmoved movers are not personal deities. Thus, even if one accepts the cosmological argument as valid (which I don't), it does nothing to show the existence of any sort of thing which resembles the deity of the Abrahamic traditions.

 

[Fido2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12Bass /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is rather presumptuous for one to suppose that they fully understand understand another's views. My understanding of my own views is incomplete! I doubt all sorts of assumptions because false conclusions invariably arise from false assumptions. Why do I have to posit any alternatives? I'm not even convinced that explanations regarding ultimate causes are necessarily logical, at least according to the current human understanding. Besides, empirical evidence beats arguments any time. Let's do an epistemic test: Is the number of stars in the Universe even or odd? This question has a very definite answer (at any given point of time), yet it cannot be answered accurately, because the necessary evidence is simply unavailable to us. Much the same, the evidence about pre-Big Bang states is also unavailable to us... even though there must be some definite answer. Where evidence is unavailable it is wise to admit ignorance and continue the search. Again, what I refuse to do is come to any firm conclusions in the absence of conclusive evidence.... yet this is exactly the approach found in mysticism.... belief in the absence of evidence. My epistemic methodology is too rigorous to allow such beliefs. And perhaps it is once again worth pointing out that unmoved movers are not personal deities. Thus, even if one accepts the cosmological argument as valid (which I don't), it does nothing to show the existence of any sort of thing which resembles the deity of the Abrahamic traditions.

No one here has claimed to know it all. My stating that I fully understand your materialistic views may have been presumptuous. I apologize. I just meant that I understand that view "well".
Again, my friend, you are free as a bird to believe or disbelieve anything you want. Now...where were we?

 

[12Bass]

The number of stars in the Universe must be either even or odd.

I dare anyone here to form a justified belief one way or the other.

My point being that it is not reasonable to form beliefs without sufficient evidence, not for me, not for anyone.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

One year of philosophy at St Andrews University was enough for me. It was interesting, but so much time was spent having arguments over meaning. Philosophers seem to enjoy getting bogged down, swamped by their own wordage and having to clarify everything.

One tutorial involved a discussion about awareness. I was asked the classic " how do you know that a tree makes a sound when it falls down in a forest, when no one is there?" My response was the answer came from physics, not philosophy, it makes a sound because kinetic energy is converted to sound and some heat as well. I could not see the point in philosophising about this question.

So, my favourite philosopher is JS Mill and his work 'On Utilitarianism' which I found to be logical, worthwhile and practical.