Metaphysics: The ACTUAL Key to Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

Truth is mental construct - it only makes sense if you thnk that there is an actual state of affairs - there isnt one outside of our perception of the state of affairs. Truth is correspondance with our own internal logic.[/quote]

Oh my![/quote]

I know a regular old Karl Popper. ;)[/quote]

wow, more of the same. althoi should thank you as i never heard of karl popper before, its nice to know a famous philosphoher had a similar idea to me, although i did think i was unique in my views. is my view no longer valid as someone else already had it? is there any posituib ir view that hasnt already been argued by a philosopher???[/quote]

I have no clue what your philosophy is, I can’t even get a yes or no to any question.

Karl Popper was a Fallibilist, he probably had the most best form of it. Fallibilism - Wikipedia

162

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

Truth is mental construct - it only makes sense if you thnk that there is an actual state of affairs - there isnt one outside of our perception of the state of affairs. Truth is correspondance with our own internal logic.[/quote]

Oh my![/quote]

I know a regular old Karl Popper. ;)[/quote]

wow, more of the same. althoi should thank you as i never heard of karl popper before, its nice to know a famous philosphoher had a similar idea to me, although i did think i was unique in my views. is my view no longer valid as someone else already had it? is there any posituib ir view that hasnt already been argued by a philosopher???[/quote]

I have no clue what your philosophy is, I can’t even get a yes or no to any question.

Karl Popper was a Fallibilist, he probably had the most best form of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism[/quote]

im not trying to be obtuse - ask me what you want, ill try to give a simple yes or now answer

163

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The aims of punishment are three fold: retribution, correction, and deterrence. [/quote]

in your opinion. i see no value in retribution. i think the idea of wanting to harm someone just for the sake of causing them suffering is petty and dare i say it, “whispers” …evil.[/quote]

That’s not my opinion. If it was I would have said, “In my opinion.”

And the reason why retribution or inflicting on a wrongdoer a harm he has come to deserve because of his offense is because he deserves it.

Yes, it doesn’t whisper evil, it is a an evil. Though there is a distinction between the evils we may or may not talking about.

164

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The aims of punishment are three fold: retribution, correction, and deterrence. [/quote]

in your opinion. i see no value in retribution. i think the idea of wanting to harm someone just for the sake of causing them suffering is petty and dare i say it, “whispers” …evil.[/quote]

That’s not my opinion. If it was I would have said, “In my opinion.”

And the reason why retribution or inflicting on a wrongdoer a harm he has come to deserve because of his offense is because he deserves it.

Yes, it doesn’t whisper evil, it is a an evil. Though there is a distinction between the evils we may or may not talking about.[/quote]

Fair enough, didn’t realise retribution was part of the definition of punishment. I guess that means I don’t believe in punishment… can u elaborate on the two types of evil, is it the difference between an evil act and actual evil, or purely evil intent?

165

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
If the mind is the shaper of concepts, where does it find the basic materials he give shape to ?
Does the mind create them ?
In other words :
Is there something before and outside the shaping activity of the mind ?
[/quote]

The question is flawed - the very concept of the mind/matter duality is a construct of the human mind. What do you mean “material”? If you mean is there more to conscienceness, who knows? What is the material that my thoughts are made out of? we can’t answer any of these questions - we are our reality, there is nothing more that “we” can perceive of.[/quote]

i’m not speaking about “the very concept of the mind/matter duality” here.

You told us that “things” were “shaped” (and isolated) by the mind.
I simply try to understand the theory behind this metaphor.

There is basically two very different possibilities.

Either
-the mind shapes the things like an author write words on a blank page. IE : the mind CREATES things out of nothing. or out of itself (which is actually the same thing)

Or
-the mind shapes the things like a sculptor give shape to a stone block. (hence the word “material”).
And in this case, there is definitely something outside/before the activity of the mind, even if we always perceive through the “prism” of the mind.

In one case, objectivity is impossible, and all our discussions are meaningless. The debate stop right there.
In the other case, we can go to the next step and try to define this “something” that exist outside/before our concepts.

the first perspective is called “solipsism”. It’s an intellectual impasse, and the scrapyard of many bad philosophies. especially (post)modern ones.

the other is the first step of most consistent ontologies.

[/quote]

OK. I didn’t know that, I’d seen the term solipsism before but never really understood what it was, will go look it up. It sounds similar to nihilism, which I think is the position that there is no meaning in anything?

I have to say, I am starting to enjoy this thread (also thinking back to the epistomology thread), although it does feel slightly like everyone is beatring around the bush and kind of just teasing, although I’m finding it quite interesting.

Of the top of my head, I don’t think a lack of objectivity equals meaningless. I think this is quite a big hole in a lot of the arguments here. Subjectivity does equal opinion and an impossibility to actually say anything or know anything meaningful.

Silee, I think you said “your truth, my truth”. I think you are assuming an extreme version of my position. All humans follow the same logic, it a subjective set of laws that only work within the framework of human cognition but it suffices for our purposes.

When people here talk about an objective reality, absolute knowledge, what does this really meaN? objecitivyt requires an absolute perspective, I can certainly see how the God that theological religons teach would fulfil this role, BY DEFINITION, but how can anything have this status? Unless we are talking about the totality of all there is, there will always be something else besides what we are talking about, and therefore, no thing can be objective. Only the totality of all existence can be “objective”.

I think a degree of objectivity is all that is required. As long as the laws or knowlege we know is objective with respect to all things that we interact with, then there is consistency, which is all I think a conscience mind can acheive and all that is required. It’s possible there is more than one mode of being, of perception. There doest HAVE to be some uniting force or being, I’m not sure what the grounds are for such a position?

Kamui - the way you talk about the mind acting on somrething or creatring itself = I still think you are imposing a duality that may not exist in all realities. maybe this is all my mind, but perhaps my mind is made of something more solid than matter…

I think positing a final cause, be it God or just existince itself is just neatly sidestepping the issues we are discussing.

I would like to ask Tribulus and Brother Chris - WHY do you believe in God? Your various logical/reasoning based arguments are interestingt but none of them actually give grounds to postively believe in a theological god like the one you believe in. Is there an element of settling on the “best” position, do you really care about these philsophical arguments or are they to counter laughing and pointing atheists (who can be incredibly offensive and obnoxious, I really dislike Richard Dawkins, ok, you dont respect religon, how about respecting your fellow human being???)[/quote]

scorcher I am not sure I know what you mean by all human’s follow the same logic. That is a philosophical remark since we know that many people have different rules of grammer.Your not pointing out any scientific evidence for your comment. Human grammars have been studied by philosophers and linguists who are trying to find rules of meaning but I don’t think they have come up with any thing that has been established.

166

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.[/quote]

Is that a fact?[/quote]

Nope, it’s a serie of analytical truthes… aka tautologies.
[/quote]

I think abandoned is a bit harsh…perhaps thought it so obvious it wasn’t worth defending to those too simple to get it might be more of Witt’s style… He did think it answered every philosophical question ever at least for a time.
Anyway

http://people.umass.edu/phil335-klement-2/tlp/tlp.html

In the original and two translations side by side.

"Anthony Kenny provides a useful analogy for understanding Wittgenstein’s logical atomism: a slightly modified game of chess.[25] Just like objects in states of affairs, the chess pieces do not alone constitute the gameÃ?¢??their arrangements, together with the pieces (objects) themselves, determine the state of affairs.[23]

Through Kenny’s chess analogy, we can see the relationship between Wittgenstein’s logical atomism and his picture theory of representation.[26] For the sake of this analogy, the chess pieces are objects, they and their positions constitute states of affairs and therefore facts, and the totality of facts is the entire particular game of chess
[/quote]

As perceived by humans, not necessarily in that state without a human mind working its magic. [/quote]

I think abandoned is a bit harsh…perhaps thought it so obvious it wasn’t worth defending to those too simple to get it might be more of Witt’s style… He did think it answered every philosophical question ever at least for a time.
Anyway

http://people.umass.edu/phil335-klement-2/tlp/tlp.html

No Wittgenstein did come to see that his early work lacking in regard to meaning. The early work in short stated that meaning is a relationship between facts that are made of atoms and captured by picturing them. That work was trying to draw the limits of what could be said and what could be said would be statement about states of affairs which is the domain of science.
The latter work the Philosophical investigations said don’t ask for the meaning rather look at how words are used. In both works he is trying to say something very important about language
He thought the Tratatus said everything that could be said from what could only be shown, the latter being what he said were most important but couldn’t be said. The Investigations picks up his need to do philosophy by seeing how words function and how they are used in ordinary everyday life. The idea of doing philosophy for him was like doing therapy by showing how philosophers distort the language when they use it in ways that aren’t used ordinarily. And to give them reminders of how words are used.

167

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
If the mind is the shaper of concepts, where does it find the basic materials he give shape to ?
Does the mind create them ?
In other words :
Is there something before and outside the shaping activity of the mind ?
[/quote]

The question is flawed - the very concept of the mind/matter duality is a construct of the human mind. What do you mean “material”? If you mean is there more to conscienceness, who knows? What is the material that my thoughts are made out of? we can’t answer any of these questions - we are our reality, there is nothing more that “we” can perceive of.[/quote]

i’m not speaking about “the very concept of the mind/matter duality” here.

You told us that “things” were “shaped” (and isolated) by the mind.
I simply try to understand the theory behind this metaphor.

There is basically two very different possibilities.

Either
-the mind shapes the things like an author write words on a blank page. IE : the mind CREATES things out of nothing. or out of itself (which is actually the same thing)

Or
-the mind shapes the things like a sculptor give shape to a stone block. (hence the word “material”).
And in this case, there is definitely something outside/before the activity of the mind, even if we always perceive through the “prism” of the mind.

In one case, objectivity is impossible, and all our discussions are meaningless. The debate stop right there.
In the other case, we can go to the next step and try to define this “something” that exist outside/before our concepts.

the first perspective is called “solipsism”. It’s an intellectual impasse, and the scrapyard of many bad philosophies. especially (post)modern ones.

the other is the first step of most consistent ontologies.

[/quote]

OK. I didn’t know that, I’d seen the term solipsism before but never really understood what it was, will go look it up. It sounds similar to nihilism, which I think is the position that there is no meaning in anything?

I have to say, I am starting to enjoy this thread (also thinking back to the epistomology thread), although it does feel slightly like everyone is beatring around the bush and kind of just teasing, although I’m finding it quite interesting.

Of the top of my head, I don’t think a lack of objectivity equals meaningless. I think this is quite a big hole in a lot of the arguments here. Subjectivity does equal opinion and an impossibility to actually say anything or know anything meaningful.

Silee, I think you said “your truth, my truth”. I think you are assuming an extreme version of my position. All humans follow the same logic, it a subjective set of laws that only work within the framework of human cognition but it suffices for our purposes.

When people here talk about an objective reality, absolute knowledge, what does this really meaN? objecitivyt requires an absolute perspective, I can certainly see how the God that theological religons teach would fulfil this role, BY DEFINITION, but how can anything have this status? Unless we are talking about the totality of all there is, there will always be something else besides what we are talking about, and therefore, no thing can be objective. Only the totality of all existence can be “objective”.

I think a degree of objectivity is all that is required. As long as the laws or knowlege we know is objective with respect to all things that we interact with, then there is consistency, which is all I think a conscience mind can acheive and all that is required. It’s possible there is more than one mode of being, of perception. There doest HAVE to be some uniting force or being, I’m not sure what the grounds are for such a position?

Kamui - the way you talk about the mind acting on somrething or creatring itself = I still think you are imposing a duality that may not exist in all realities. maybe this is all my mind, but perhaps my mind is made of something more solid than matter…

I think positing a final cause, be it God or just existince itself is just neatly sidestepping the issues we are discussing.

I would like to ask Tribulus and Brother Chris - WHY do you believe in God? Your various logical/reasoning based arguments are interestingt but none of them actually give grounds to postively believe in a theological god like the one you believe in. Is there an element of settling on the “best” position, do you really care about these philsophical arguments or are they to counter laughing and pointing atheists (who can be incredibly offensive and obnoxious, I really dislike Richard Dawkins, ok, you dont respect religon, how about respecting your fellow human being???)[/quote]

scorcher I am not sure I know what you mean by all human’s follow the same logic. That is a philosophical remark since we know that many people have different rules of grammer.Your not pointing out any scientific evidence for your comment. Human grammars have been studied by philosophers and linguists who are trying to find rules of meaning but I don’t think they have come up with any thing that has been established. [/quote]

I mean human reasoning is logical, for all humans. As all humans cognize under the same laws of reasoning (and emotions and instincts), we are able to communicate and convery meaning to each other (assuming we are real). Furthermore, ideas of justice/fairness, morality, mathematics, art etc can be shared by all of humankind. All of human knowledge and meaning may not be objective, but why does that matter?

I didnt mean grammar or language structure, although it would appear most of mankind can communicate. What do you mean by rule of meaning?

168

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:
I think you can make a case that Ontology, metaphysics, Theology and to a lesser extent epistemology are interrelated. But if i had to choose two that seem to underlay all thought that would be ontology and metaphysics. I further think that modern scientific investigation can escape metaphysics in so far as Theory, have to be supported by data and subject to peer review or replication although i don’t think this is the essence of science. The reason i say this is a team of scientist could be working to replicate a study and in the process come up with hypotheses that strike out in a new direction and after a long process lead to a new paradigm for advancing knowledge.[/quote]

The science is empirical. Just sayin’. Though yes, guided by metaphysical entities.

Pat… I dont’ think we have to reduce science to any metaphysical foundations to have a vibrant science which deals with the natural world. Here i am think only of physics, chemistry and biology… The human science would have a different methodology or many different methodologies because of the fact that human’s are also subjects and just observing them as if they were objects of study in a laboratory like atoms or germs or two variables doesn’t work to further our understanding of the complexity that we are.
[/quote]

169

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
If the mind is the shaper of concepts, where does it find the basic materials he give shape to ?
Does the mind create them ?
In other words :
Is there something before and outside the shaping activity of the mind ?
[/quote]

The question is flawed - the very concept of the mind/matter duality is a construct of the human mind. What do you mean “material”? If you mean is there more to conscienceness, who knows? What is the material that my thoughts are made out of? we can’t answer any of these questions - we are our reality, there is nothing more that “we” can perceive of.[/quote]

i’m not speaking about “the very concept of the mind/matter duality” here.

You told us that “things” were “shaped” (and isolated) by the mind.
I simply try to understand the theory behind this metaphor.

There is basically two very different possibilities.

Either
-the mind shapes the things like an author write words on a blank page. IE : the mind CREATES things out of nothing. or out of itself (which is actually the same thing)

Or
-the mind shapes the things like a sculptor give shape to a stone block. (hence the word “material”).
And in this case, there is definitely something outside/before the activity of the mind, even if we always perceive through the “prism” of the mind.

In one case, objectivity is impossible, and all our discussions are meaningless. The debate stop right there.
In the other case, we can go to the next step and try to define this “something” that exist outside/before our concepts.

the first perspective is called “solipsism”. It’s an intellectual impasse, and the scrapyard of many bad philosophies. especially (post)modern ones.

the other is the first step of most consistent ontologies.

[/quote]

OK. I didn’t know that, I’d seen the term solipsism before but never really understood what it was, will go look it up. It sounds similar to nihilism, which I think is the position that there is no meaning in anything?

I have to say, I am starting to enjoy this thread (also thinking back to the epistomology thread), although it does feel slightly like everyone is beatring around the bush and kind of just teasing, although I’m finding it quite interesting.

Of the top of my head, I don’t think a lack of objectivity equals meaningless. I think this is quite a big hole in a lot of the arguments here. Subjectivity does equal opinion and an impossibility to actually say anything or know anything meaningful.

Silee, I think you said “your truth, my truth”. I think you are assuming an extreme version of my position. All humans follow the same logic, it a subjective set of laws that only work within the framework of human cognition but it suffices for our purposes.

When people here talk about an objective reality, absolute knowledge, what does this really meaN? objecitivyt requires an absolute perspective, I can certainly see how the God that theological religons teach would fulfil this role, BY DEFINITION, but how can anything have this status? Unless we are talking about the totality of all there is, there will always be something else besides what we are talking about, and therefore, no thing can be objective. Only the totality of all existence can be “objective”.

I think a degree of objectivity is all that is required. As long as the laws or knowlege we know is objective with respect to all things that we interact with, then there is consistency, which is all I think a conscience mind can acheive and all that is required. It’s possible there is more than one mode of being, of perception. There doest HAVE to be some uniting force or being, I’m not sure what the grounds are for such a position?

Kamui - the way you talk about the mind acting on somrething or creatring itself = I still think you are imposing a duality that may not exist in all realities. maybe this is all my mind, but perhaps my mind is made of something more solid than matter…

I think positing a final cause, be it God or just existince itself is just neatly sidestepping the issues we are discussing.

I would like to ask Tribulus and Brother Chris - WHY do you believe in God? Your various logical/reasoning based arguments are interestingt but none of them actually give grounds to postively believe in a theological god like the one you believe in. Is there an element of settling on the “best” position, do you really care about these philsophical arguments or are they to counter laughing and pointing atheists (who can be incredibly offensive and obnoxious, I really dislike Richard Dawkins, ok, you dont respect religon, how about respecting your fellow human being???)[/quote]

scorcher I am not sure I know what you mean by all human’s follow the same logic. That is a philosophical remark since we know that many people have different rules of grammer.Your not pointing out any scientific evidence for your comment. Human grammars have been studied by philosophers and linguists who are trying to find rules of meaning but I don’t think they have come up with any thing that has been established. [/quote]

I mean human reasoning is logical, for all humans. As all humans cognize under the same laws of reasoning (and emotions and instincts), we are able to communicate and convery meaning to each other (assuming we are real). Furthermore, ideas of justice/fairness, morality, mathematics, art etc can be shared by all of humankind. All of human knowledge and meaning may not be objective, but why does that matter?

I didnt mean grammar or language structure, although it would appear most of mankind can communicate. What do you mean by rule of meaning? [/quote]

Well as far as knowleged there are those who think we need a foundation to have knowledge ok and that foundation would be considered objective. Why does that matter? It could be used against say a group of people that say don’t see the need for objectivity in knowledge meaning having a foundation for certainty, that they are corruptors or something silly like that…

Ok rule of meaning. this could be pragmatic rules that some groups of people share and others do not. I am not saying the following is a rule , I am making it up : say its an non rational acceptance of what the other is stating that it makes sense without question. You and I may have much in common say and it makes for an easiness in talking with each other, but we all know folks that just don’t share the same “take it for granted” or same sensibility and with them we can’t find our way we can’t seem to get a talk going. I 'll be intellectually honest with you, I think this makes some sense now but if i look at it again later on it might seem irrelevant or it could lead to a further understanding on my part.

so what do you think about what i said, anything come to mind? anything at all?

170

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
If the mind is the shaper of concepts, where does it find the basic materials he give shape to ?
Does the mind create them ?
In other words :
Is there something before and outside the shaping activity of the mind ?
[/quote]

The question is flawed - the very concept of the mind/matter duality is a construct of the human mind. What do you mean “material”? If you mean is there more to conscienceness, who knows? What is the material that my thoughts are made out of? we can’t answer any of these questions - we are our reality, there is nothing more that “we” can perceive of.[/quote]

i’m not speaking about “the very concept of the mind/matter duality” here.

You told us that “things” were “shaped” (and isolated) by the mind.
I simply try to understand the theory behind this metaphor.

There is basically two very different possibilities.

Either
-the mind shapes the things like an author write words on a blank page. IE : the mind CREATES things out of nothing. or out of itself (which is actually the same thing)

Or
-the mind shapes the things like a sculptor give shape to a stone block. (hence the word “material”).
And in this case, there is definitely something outside/before the activity of the mind, even if we always perceive through the “prism” of the mind.

In one case, objectivity is impossible, and all our discussions are meaningless. The debate stop right there.
In the other case, we can go to the next step and try to define this “something” that exist outside/before our concepts.

the first perspective is called “solipsism”. It’s an intellectual impasse, and the scrapyard of many bad philosophies. especially (post)modern ones.

the other is the first step of most consistent ontologies.

[/quote]

OK. I didn’t know that, I’d seen the term solipsism before but never really understood what it was, will go look it up. It sounds similar to nihilism, which I think is the position that there is no meaning in anything?

I have to say, I am starting to enjoy this thread (also thinking back to the epistomology thread), although it does feel slightly like everyone is beatring around the bush and kind of just teasing, although I’m finding it quite interesting.

Of the top of my head, I don’t think a lack of objectivity equals meaningless. I think this is quite a big hole in a lot of the arguments here. Subjectivity does equal opinion and an impossibility to actually say anything or know anything meaningful.

Silee, I think you said “your truth, my truth”. I think you are assuming an extreme version of my position. All humans follow the same logic, it a subjective set of laws that only work within the framework of human cognition but it suffices for our purposes.

When people here talk about an objective reality, absolute knowledge, what does this really meaN? objecitivyt requires an absolute perspective, I can certainly see how the God that theological religons teach would fulfil this role, BY DEFINITION, but how can anything have this status? Unless we are talking about the totality of all there is, there will always be something else besides what we are talking about, and therefore, no thing can be objective. Only the totality of all existence can be “objective”.

I think a degree of objectivity is all that is required. As long as the laws or knowlege we know is objective with respect to all things that we interact with, then there is consistency, which is all I think a conscience mind can acheive and all that is required. It’s possible there is more than one mode of being, of perception. There doest HAVE to be some uniting force or being, I’m not sure what the grounds are for such a position?

Kamui - the way you talk about the mind acting on somrething or creatring itself = I still think you are imposing a duality that may not exist in all realities. maybe this is all my mind, but perhaps my mind is made of something more solid than matter…

I think positing a final cause, be it God or just existince itself is just neatly sidestepping the issues we are discussing.

I would like to ask Tribulus and Brother Chris - WHY do you believe in God? Your various logical/reasoning based arguments are interestingt but none of them actually give grounds to postively believe in a theological god like the one you believe in. Is there an element of settling on the “best” position, do you really care about these philsophical arguments or are they to counter laughing and pointing atheists (who can be incredibly offensive and obnoxious, I really dislike Richard Dawkins, ok, you dont respect religon, how about respecting your fellow human being???)[/quote]

scorcher I am not sure I know what you mean by all human’s follow the same logic. That is a philosophical remark since we know that many people have different rules of grammer.Your not pointing out any scientific evidence for your comment. Human grammars have been studied by philosophers and linguists who are trying to find rules of meaning but I don’t think they have come up with any thing that has been established. [/quote]

I mean human reasoning is logical, for all humans. As all humans cognize under the same laws of reasoning (and emotions and instincts), we are able to communicate and convery meaning to each other (assuming we are real). Furthermore, ideas of justice/fairness, morality, mathematics, art etc can be shared by all of humankind. All of human knowledge and meaning may not be objective, but why does that matter?

I didnt mean grammar or language structure, although it would appear most of mankind can communicate. What do you mean by rule of meaning? [/quote]

Well as far as knowleged there are those who think we need a foundation to have knowledge ok and that foundation would be considered objective. Why does that matter? It could be used against say a group of people that say don’t see the need for objectivity in knowledge meaning having a foundation for certainty, that they are corruptors or something silly like that…

Ok rule of meaning. this could be pragmatic rules that some groups of people share and others do not. I am not saying the following is a rule , I am making it up : say its an non rational acceptance of what the other is stating that it makes sense without question. You and I may have much in common say and it makes for an easiness in talking with each other, but we all know folks that just don’t share the same “take it for granted” or same sensibility and with them we can’t find our way we can’t seem to get a talk going. I 'll be intellectually honest with you, I think this makes some sense now but if i look at it again later on it might seem irrelevant or it could lead to a further understanding on my part.

so what do you think about what i said, anything come to mind? anything at all.
[/quote]

I think a common foundation is required, that is objective with respect to the domain of enquiry e.g. just like logic is for humans. In terms of enquiry into the wider world, I think humans are doing what we can and whether we argue knowledge is grounded in absolutes or not doesnt change whether it actually is. I don’t think anyone can claim to have objective universal knowledge and prove it so not entirely sure about your comment about corruptors.

ABout rule of meaning - I think there arent any “rules”, meaning is given to a word over time and through use. I do think the way we think and our concepts are “framed” by the words we use. We only think in concepts that we can articulate, otherwise we dont seem to explicitly realise what it is we feel. I think most humans tend to feel similar emotions and are aware of similar things, so that we seem to know what someone is trying to tell us and the word used is just a signal, which then becomes a source of meaning itself. I think a rule for meaning would be for two people to be feeling or thinking the same thing, at that point, any noise or verbal signal will affirm the agreement. Language is no different to using hand gestures - imagine that, no verbal communication but all these concepts still existing - i cant even imagine how that would work…yet, deaf people do it all the time.

I think your feeling of losing understanding accords with that, the words stay the same, but the meaning you attach to them changes - meaning does change, understanding is not immediate or static. rambling a bit now

171

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You never act nice to me except in private. Don’t give me that I don’t know how to act when you’re nice. >>>[/quote]I was half tempted for a minute to go back to my old way of dealing with you. Nope, won’t do it. Never nice to you except in private Chris? That’s what you see? We talk about different things alot in private. We debate in public. We are adversaries, but do you want me to finally say it? Yes, by the grace of our God I embrace you and pray for you and love you as my brother. Despite that reprobate church, I KNOW He is moving in your heart. Does that mean I’m not being nice? You need to learn to love while the sweat and blood is still flowing and the gloves are still on Chris. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< If you can read, the title says Metaphysics, not Aristotle. So, if anything I’m claiming that Metaphysics is the key, not Aristotle. <<<>>> So, if you want a succinct title: Metaphysics: The Foundation to Philosophy.[/quote][quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< "I am referring to metaphysics, as in Aristotle’s writings. >>>[/quote]Yes, I can read. I did not see addressing Aristotle, who you brought up, as a hijack, but I’ll continue in my thread.

172

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The aims of punishment are three fold: retribution, correction, and deterrence. [/quote]

in your opinion. i see no value in retribution. i think the idea of wanting to harm someone just for the sake of causing them suffering is petty and dare i say it, “whispers” …evil.[/quote]

That’s not my opinion. If it was I would have said, “In my opinion.”

And the reason why retribution or inflicting on a wrongdoer a harm he has come to deserve because of his offense is because he deserves it.

Yes, it doesn’t whisper evil, it is a an evil. Though there is a distinction between the evils we may or may not talking about.[/quote]

Fair enough, didn’t realise retribution was part of the definition of punishment. I guess that means I don’t believe in punishment… can u elaborate on the two types of evil, is it the difference between an evil act and actual evil, or purely evil intent?[/quote]

No, it’s an old idea that all suffering is caused by evil. So, if someone is suffering it is an evil.

However, there are also inherently evil actions.

173

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I was half tempted for a minute to go back to my old way of dealing with you. Nope, won’t do it. Never nice to you except in private Chris? That’s what you see? We talk about different things alot in private. We debate in public. We are adversaries, but do you want me to finally say it? [/quote]

I am fine being adversaries, I’m debate adversaries with a lot of my own brethren. If you can’t be disinterested in debate, you just complicate the process. But I don’t understand bringing these personal matters into debate. I am courteous as I can be, but I’m not inerrant. If I take a step too far I have no problem with saying sorry, but I attempt to avoid bringing in non-sequitors into the debate. I try to have civil discourse.

You need to learn how to refrain from non-sequitors and inflammatory comments like reprobate Church. <— we’re not talking about the Church, and you haven’t proven that is reprobate, just taken a few swings at straw men.

[quote]Yes, I can read. I did not see addressing Aristotle, who you brought up, as a hijack, but I’ll continue in my thread.
[/quote]

No, bringing up an inflammatory non-sequitor claim, like “reprobate Church” is a hijack. The reason I pointed out Aristotle is so that Soul could have a foundation to stand on in the discussion. I didn’t think he’d want to look at Aquinas’ metaphysics.

Anyway, as I pointed out the Church puts theology as the highest knowledge.

174

[quote]kamui wrote:

You know what, I do think the assumption that the mind and reality are seperate an just that but then I realised that means the answer to the above question is that I do think something is “out there”, which is not a pure product of my mind.

So I guess I do believe there exists something that is not contigent on me but I’m not sure if that means complete objectivity?

175

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The aims of punishment are three fold: retribution, correction, and deterrence. [/quote]

in your opinion. i see no value in retribution. i think the idea of wanting to harm someone just for the sake of causing them suffering is petty and dare i say it, “whispers” …evil.[/quote]

That’s not my opinion. If it was I would have said, “In my opinion.”

And the reason why retribution or inflicting on a wrongdoer a harm he has come to deserve because of his offense is because he deserves it.

Yes, it doesn’t whisper evil, it is a an evil. Though there is a distinction between the evils we may or may not talking about.[/quote]

Fair enough, didn’t realise retribution was part of the definition of punishment. I guess that means I don’t believe in punishment… can u elaborate on the two types of evil, is it the difference between an evil act and actual evil, or purely evil intent?[/quote]

No, it’s an old idea that all suffering is caused by evil. So, if someone is suffering it is an evil.

However, there are also inherently evil actions. [/quote]

Are they actions that cause suffering of have the intent to? I would tend to agree, I see no reason for suffering in of itself. I’m surprised the idea of revenge is a part your belief system. Forget the system, I’m just surprised that your notion of justice encompasses intentional suffering.

Am I mislabelling it by calling it revenge?

176

I’ll have to get this later Chris.

177

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:
I think you can make a case that Ontology, metaphysics, Theology and to a lesser extent epistemology are interrelated. But if i had to choose two that seem to underlay all thought that would be ontology and metaphysics. I further think that modern scientific investigation can escape metaphysics in so far as Theory, have to be supported by data and subject to peer review or replication although i don’t think this is the essence of science. The reason i say this is a team of scientist could be working to replicate a study and in the process come up with hypotheses that strike out in a new direction and after a long process lead to a new paradigm for advancing knowledge.[/quote]

The science is empirical. Just sayin’. Though yes, guided by metaphysical entities.

Pat… I dont’ think we have to reduce science to any metaphysical foundations to have a vibrant science which deals with the natural world. Here i am think only of physics, chemistry and biology… The human science would have a different methodology or many different methodologies because of the fact that human’s are also subjects and just observing them as if they were objects of study in a laboratory like atoms or germs or two variables doesn’t work to further our understanding of the complexity that we are.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Well, yes and no. The scientific method seems to operate fine as an empirical methodology, but the ‘scientific method’ itself is a metaphysical entity. It also depends on what your end game is. If you are trying to come up, say with a new rubber compound for tires, that’s pretty much an empirical proposition. If you are trying to find out what the law behind electromagnetism is, that’s a metaphysical proposition. In the latter, you can use empirical process as a guiding factor, but the proposition is a metaphysical one.

178

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
If the mind is the shaper of concepts, where does it find the basic materials he give shape to ?
Does the mind create them ?
In other words :
Is there something before and outside the shaping activity of the mind ?
[/quote]

The question is flawed - the very concept of the mind/matter duality is a construct of the human mind. What do you mean “material”? If you mean is there more to conscienceness, who knows? What is the material that my thoughts are made out of? we can’t answer any of these questions - we are our reality, there is nothing more that “we” can perceive of.[/quote]

i’m not speaking about “the very concept of the mind/matter duality” here.

You told us that “things” were “shaped” (and isolated) by the mind.
I simply try to understand the theory behind this metaphor.

There is basically two very different possibilities.

Either
-the mind shapes the things like an author write words on a blank page. IE : the mind CREATES things out of nothing. or out of itself (which is actually the same thing)

Or
-the mind shapes the things like a sculptor give shape to a stone block. (hence the word “material”).
And in this case, there is definitely something outside/before the activity of the mind, even if we always perceive through the “prism” of the mind.

In one case, objectivity is impossible, and all our discussions are meaningless. The debate stop right there.
In the other case, we can go to the next step and try to define this “something” that exist outside/before our concepts.

the first perspective is called “solipsism”. It’s an intellectual impasse, and the scrapyard of many bad philosophies. especially (post)modern ones.

the other is the first step of most consistent ontologies.

[/quote]

OK. I didn’t know that, I’d seen the term solipsism before but never really understood what it was, will go look it up. It sounds similar to nihilism, which I think is the position that there is no meaning in anything?

I have to say, I am starting to enjoy this thread (also thinking back to the epistomology thread), although it does feel slightly like everyone is beatring around the bush and kind of just teasing, although I’m finding it quite interesting.

Of the top of my head, I don’t think a lack of objectivity equals meaningless. I think this is quite a big hole in a lot of the arguments here. Subjectivity does equal opinion and an impossibility to actually say anything or know anything meaningful.

Silee, I think you said “your truth, my truth”. I think you are assuming an extreme version of my position. All humans follow the same logic, it a subjective set of laws that only work within the framework of human cognition but it suffices for our purposes.

When people here talk about an objective reality, absolute knowledge, what does this really meaN? objecitivyt requires an absolute perspective, I can certainly see how the God that theological religons teach would fulfil this role, BY DEFINITION, but how can anything have this status? Unless we are talking about the totality of all there is, there will always be something else besides what we are talking about, and therefore, no thing can be objective. Only the totality of all existence can be “objective”.

I think a degree of objectivity is all that is required. As long as the laws or knowlege we know is objective with respect to all things that we interact with, then there is consistency, which is all I think a conscience mind can acheive and all that is required. It’s possible there is more than one mode of being, of perception. There doest HAVE to be some uniting force or being, I’m not sure what the grounds are for such a position?

Kamui - the way you talk about the mind acting on somrething or creatring itself = I still think you are imposing a duality that may not exist in all realities. maybe this is all my mind, but perhaps my mind is made of something more solid than matter…

I think positing a final cause, be it God or just existince itself is just neatly sidestepping the issues we are discussing.

I would like to ask Tribulus and Brother Chris - WHY do you believe in God? Your various logical/reasoning based arguments are interestingt but none of them actually give grounds to postively believe in a theological god like the one you believe in. Is there an element of settling on the “best” position, do you really care about these philsophical arguments or are they to counter laughing and pointing atheists (who can be incredibly offensive and obnoxious, I really dislike Richard Dawkins, ok, you dont respect religon, how about respecting your fellow human being???)[/quote]

scorcher I am not sure I know what you mean by all human’s follow the same logic. That is a philosophical remark since we know that many people have different rules of grammer.Your not pointing out any scientific evidence for your comment. Human grammars have been studied by philosophers and linguists who are trying to find rules of meaning but I don’t think they have come up with any thing that has been established. [/quote]

I mean human reasoning is logical, for all humans. As all humans cognize under the same laws of reasoning (and emotions and instincts), we are able to communicate and convery meaning to each other (assuming we are real). Furthermore, ideas of justice/fairness, morality, mathematics, art etc can be shared by all of humankind. All of human knowledge and meaning may not be objective, but why does that matter?

I didnt mean grammar or language structure, although it would appear most of mankind can communicate. What do you mean by rule of meaning? [/quote]

Well as far as knowleged there are those who think we need a foundation to have knowledge ok and that foundation would be considered objective. Why does that matter? It could be used against say a group of people that say don’t see the need for objectivity in knowledge meaning having a foundation for certainty, that they are corruptors or something silly like that…

Ok rule of meaning. this could be pragmatic rules that some groups of people share and others do not. I am not saying the following is a rule , I am making it up : say its an non rational acceptance of what the other is stating that it makes sense without question. You and I may have much in common say and it makes for an easiness in talking with each other, but we all know folks that just don’t share the same “take it for granted” or same sensibility and with them we can’t find our way we can’t seem to get a talk going. I 'll be intellectually honest with you, I think this makes some sense now but if i look at it again later on it might seem irrelevant or it could lead to a further understanding on my part.

so what do you think about what i said, anything come to mind? anything at all.
[/quote]

I think a common foundation is required, that is objective with respect to the domain of enquiry e.g. just like logic is for humans. In terms of enquiry into the wider world, I think humans are doing what we can and whether we argue knowledge is grounded in absolutes or not doesnt change whether it actually is. I don’t think anyone can claim to have objective universal knowledge and prove it so not entirely sure about your comment about corruptors.

ABout rule of meaning - I think there arent any “rules”, meaning is given to a word over time and through use. I do think the way we think and our concepts are “framed” by the words we use. We only think in concepts that we can articulate, otherwise we dont seem to explicitly realise what it is we feel. I think most humans tend to feel similar emotions and are aware of similar things, so that we seem to know what someone is trying to tell us and the word used is just a signal, which then becomes a source of meaning itself. I think a rule for meaning would be for two people to be feeling or thinking the same thing, at that point, any noise or verbal signal will affirm the agreement. Language is no different to using hand gestures - imagine that, no verbal communication but all these concepts still existing - i cant even imagine how that would work…yet, deaf people do it all the time.

I think your feeling of losing understanding accords with that, the words stay the same, but the meaning you attach to them changes - meaning does change, understanding is not immediate or static. rambling a bit now[/quote]

Just a few point since i think we are getting in over our heads. First it matters ( to me at least) if you are arguing for a foundation for knowing since its exactly those you are into foundations that are doing metaphysics. A non foundational view doesn’t need to be reductionistic, meaning it doesn’t have to be reduced to first principles ok. Although with that said if you look at Transformational grammar, and the work of Noam Chomsky he does say that there is a universal grammar ok. How that universal grammar plays out depends on different languages.

The other point I want to make and here i am addressing your ( what i think is over-simple view) of logic being essential for humans. Is that in natural languages its not clear at times what if any logic is at work. ( check out Montague semantics which is an attempt to right a logic for natural languages) I don’t expect you to read that much since its a lot of stuff there and we can still talk without knowing about what I am pointing to.
Here’s a bit of a counter example to your logic is a foundation like objectivity is. Often in our everyday lives we are just looking for support (emotional support) for what we say, and while there maybe sense, could be even irrational, some set of logical laws isn’t even applicable there. Just look at the way maybe right-wing tea party folks see buying into the health care mandate as bad for their health care when the facts tell us other wise.

I am not saying I have a complete understanding of human communication and all its manifestations ,socially, psychologically, emotionally , pragmatically, logically, culturally.
But it should is fun to have to think deeper about it

179

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

You know what, I do think the assumption that the mind and reality are seperate an just that but then I realised that means the answer to the above question is that I do think something is “out there”, which is not a pure product of my mind.

So I guess I do believe there exists something that is not contigent on me but I’m not sure if that means complete objectivity?[/quote]

depends what you take as complete objectivity. You can say that yes there is something out there, the material world, and man has a relationship to it but there are limits to his/her knowing it for certain. Giving up complete objectivity would mean you would take on a relativist point of view, but this point of view isn’t pure craziness and that your word is as good as any other in regard to topics of interest. Say your into architecture and building the tallest building in the world ok, well you would argue and show your research and fight it out with others who claim to have the strongest building possible. Knowledge could result for a time and a place and because it didn’t have absolute foundations doesn’t follow that its not useful or knowledge.

One book comes to mind you might want to see and that is John Dewey’s . The quest for certainty. There are others, just thought I’d mention it to you.

180

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

Truth is mental construct - it only makes sense if you thnk that there is an actual state of affairs - there isnt one outside of our perception of the state of affairs. Truth is correspondance with our own internal logic.[/quote]

Oh my![/quote]
que? how about someone discusses something instead of poking fun and saying nothing more…im genuinely interested to know why you would and how you disagree with the above, please tell me.[/quote]

I am happy to discuss, but I am a little bit of a loss as to where to begin. I have heard of the ol’ ‘relative morality’ thing, but relative truth? I kinda thought that truth not being relative was a given. Statement truths for instance function on the ‘law of excluded middle’ which means that a statement is either true, or ‘is the case’ or it’s not true or ‘is not the case’, there is no third option.
A truth states ‘what is the case’. So if I say ‘There are two people in the room.’ and there are in fact are two people in the room that statement is true because that is in fact the case. Now if I say ‘There are two people in the room.’ and there is nobody in the room, then that is a non-truth in that, that is not the case. So that’s all truth is a statement about what is the case.
So when you say that it depends on the person, or observer, I don’t know what you could possibly mean.
I cannot say ‘There are two people in the room.’ there be nobody in the room and it be a true statement by sheer will.