Intellectual Bankruptcy (ritual, reject, contradiction, beliefs, creation)

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by PeaceSeeker

Ahem...Do you consider Christianity the philosophical bedrock from which we can build our lives with the bricks of reason?

Yes, thank you for asking.

At least that is what I have concluded for myself. After all, I believe the Bible is the inerrant truth, inspired by God. What firmer foundation could you ask for? To me the Christian foundation is the ideal stage for a champion of reason.

Now, if I were to decide that special revelation is impossible, and that the Bible is not inspired by God, but just the opinion of men, then that changes things.

So what would I do? Perhaps turn to science. Stand on the ground of empiricism and scientific method; after all look at all of the amazing technology built on this ground. But when I look to how I live my life --the ethics and moral principles--what do I have? Should I base the big decisions I have in life on the declarations of ivory-tower experts in the fields of sociology, anthropology, biology and psychology? No thanks.

What then? Perhaps I go off of what feels right or feels good. The problem here is that I know myself well enough to know that this is wobbly ground that would change from day to day. I would be living my life according to whims. To me that seems anti-reason.

That's my opinion anyway.

Originally Posted by PeaceSeeker

the Christianity that promotes prejudice?

Please help me understand what prejudices I am being indoctrinated with...

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Ody

how i shot red?

I have no doubt there are insightful thoughts behind your post, but I am having trouble harvesting very much meaning from it because your statements are too concise.

Originally Posted by Ody

Spirituality is absurd. So is any real consideration of the issue when you think about it.

Not when I think about it. But please explain where you are coming from, if you are inclined.

I am curious why you frequent this site, which is dedicated to spirituality, if you think spirituality is absurd. Perhaps it is related to your signature "IM GOING TO RUIN THIS TOPIC"?

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Aasimar

Not a very useful contribution, but someone may find this humorous. I always wondered about the term metaphysics, and why it isn't applied to only selective branches of science. I personally would like to meet a someone versed in metageometry. Just playing with English

You are right into thinking the meaning of the word "metaphysics" is odd. The origin of the word actually comes from Aristotle's philosophy, and it literally means "after" physics. In Aristotle's works, the book on the "nature of reality" followed the book on physics. Thus, it was after-physics, or metaphysics.

It kind of stuck after that.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by PureX

We can't. Which supports the original proposition. The statement: "No one owns the truth--absolute truth cannot be known" is not an absolute statement, as you are trying to imply. The truth this statement is proposing is dependent upon what humans can know. And a truth that depends upon the human condition cannot be an absolute truth. An absolute truth would have to be true regardless of the human condition, in which case humans wouldn't be able to know it.

But it seems clear to me the statement is making an absolute statement about the nature of humans, regardless of their condition. If it is not an absolute statement or does not apply to the entirety of the human condition, then it would imply that some people may know the absolute truth and own it. That seems to defeat the purpose of the statement.

Originally Posted by PureX

No, that is not a metaphysical statement. It's a statement about metaphysics. Statements about a subject do not automatically become that subject. A statement about the weather, for example, does not become part of the weather. A statement about God, does not become divine simply because it's about a divine concept. A statement about truth does not become true simply because it's about truth.

Your right -- statements about a subject do not automatically become that subject. But in this case it does! Stating that "All notions of metaphysics (the nature of reality) are false", is itself a metaphysical statement because it is asserting a position on the nature of reality--that it can't be known.

Originally Posted by PureX

To claim that, "People believe what they want to believe because it suits them" does not necessarily imply the claim that all people do so all the time.

I didn't use the term "sometimes" or "usually". But if that is the case, then I did not word it properly. My intention was to state that "People always believe ...".

Originally Posted by PureX

It's not philosophy that has become bankrupt, or is failing in some way. It's America's educational system, that no longer teaches it's citizens how to think critically, and honestly, and skeptically about their own ideas, and the ideas of others. Everything in our culture has become a commodity for sale, including honesty and skepticism. Ideas are now being sold to whoever is willing to buy them, regardless of their logic, rationale, or truthfulness. And teaching the consumer public how to think critically is now viewed by the policy-makers (and the profiteers that control them) as being bad for business. Not to mention it's being bad for the policy-makers, themselves, who can stay in power much more easily without a critically thoughtful voting public.

I agree, but I believe the change in our education system is the result of the postmodern philosophy.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Your characterizations of various philosophical positions seem to be strawmen. More over, the Strawman fallacy is still a fallacy of logic, no matter how many changes there have been in philosophy over the last 500 or so years.

How are the strawmen? I don't see it ...

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by wanderer085

We''re only beginning to come out of the dark ages of ancient religious traditions and into the age of reason. Until politicians can boldly claim their atheism, and have a change to get elected, we'll remain in the dark ages.

I do not follow how this would improve things. Would politicians no longer base their actions and statements on power plays?

whew.... I'm done replying to everyone!

[PureX]

Originally Posted by atofel

But it seems clear to me the statement is making an absolute statement about the nature of humans, regardless of their condition.

There are no absolute statements to be made about the human condition. Any truth proposed about the human condition, is obviously dependent upon, i.e. relative to the human condition. And the essence of the meaning of the term "absolute" is that it is not dependent upon external conditions or circumstances: that it is not relative (the term "relative" is an antonym of the term "absolute").

Originally Posted by atofel

If it is not an absolute statement or does not apply to the entirety of the human condition, then it would imply that some people may know the absolute truth and own it. That seems to defeat the purpose of the statement.

A condition that applies to all human beings is not an "absolute" condition, because it's "absoluteness" is limited to and by the human condition. And a limited absolute is not absolute. Even a condition such as gravity, that applied to all the universe (as far as we know) still cannot be said to be absolute, as we don't know if or what exists outside the universe, nor do we know what happens in black holes where gravity has collapsed in on itself.

The term "absolute" implies a state that is complete within itself, and does not depend upon external conditions or influences to exist. And in the case of an absolute "truth", that means that the truthfulness being proposed remains true regardless of external conditions or influences. Human beings would be incapable of verifying such a truth, because for us, truth is established by relationship. "A" is recognized as true as it related to "B" and "C". The only possible self-evident truths that I can think of might be the truth that "I exist". But even if it is self-evident, it's not telling me anything. What am "I"? What does to mean to "exist"? We humans require context to understand. For the statement "I exist" to mean anything to us, we need context. And context relativizes the truthfulness of the statement.

Originally Posted by atofel

Your right -- statements about a subject do not automatically become that subject. But in this case it does! Stating that "All notions of metaphysics (the nature of reality) are false", is itself a metaphysical statement because it is asserting a position on the nature of reality--that it can't be known.

I don't agree with your definition of metaphysics. Metaphysics is not the "nature of reality". It's referring to the area of thought that is beyond natural reality. Also, the statement was not that metaphysical ideas are "false", it was that they are fantasy. There is a significant difference. To say they are "false" becomes a proposal of truth (or in this case untruth), that dismisses the entire category of thought, while to say that they are fantasy is only a clarification, or characterization of this category of thought. The statement does not say that fantasy is false, or pointless, or otherwise dismissible.

Originally Posted by atofel

I didn't use the term "sometimes" or "usually". But if that is the case, then I did not word it properly. My intention was to state that "People always believe ...".

If you had placed that criteria within the statement, I would have said it's a false proposition. AND that it's an unprovable proposition.

Originally Posted by atofel

I agree, but I believe the change in our education system is the result of the postmodern philosophy.

Post-modern philosophy is only an exploration of how the way we think effects what we think. It recognizes that our preconceptions about reality shape our experience and understanding of reality, past, present and future. It is in effect, the awareness of the concept of relativism, being assimilated by philosophy.

Like it or not, the concept of relativism has recently dawned on mankind. And it's effect has been and is still being felt in every aspect of human thought and perception. I believe that it's this new awareness of the concept (and reality) of relativity that is responsible for much of the strife we are experiencing in the world, today.

It's a strikingly new idea, as compared with the way we humans have always looked at and understood existence, in the past. And is it slowly becomes more and more assimilated, by more and more people, a lot of old ways of thinking and doing things are going to be lost, and let go of. Many of us will reject the new vision of reality because we don't want to let go of our old way of thinking and doing things. And these folks will find themselves more and more at odds with the rest of humanity, as the rest of humanity embraces this new vision of reality.

I personally believe this is the real reason why 9/11 happened. And it's also the reason for the animosity in America between "liberals" and "conservatives". What is really dividing these groups is their attitude toward philosophical relativity. The "conservatives" reject it, and are trying desperately to hold onto the old ways of thinking, while the "liberals" are embracing it. And in fact we are seeing evidence of this schism all over the world, as each culture begins to understand and assimilate the concept of relativity.

And I think it's also the reason that we are disagreeing here, too. You are still viewing these terms from an absolutist's perspective, while I am viewing them from a relativist's perspective. That's why they appear to be "absolute" statements to you, while they appear to be "relative" statements to me. I have embraced relativity, and so can see it everywhere I turn. I am a "post-modernist".

[michel]

Originally Posted by atofel

Since the enlightenment, we have seen a fascinating development of Western philosophy. The landscape is dominated by the transition from Christianity to deism, to naturalism, to nihilism, to existentialism, to postmodernism.
We are now left in a world where the dominant philosophy tells us the greatest virtue is to be tolerant of everyone and that everyone's beliefs are equal.

True.

It is a world in which we are discouraged from any sort of confrontation by taking a stand for what you believe in.

I am not so sure of that.

It is a world in which the value of a belief or idea is measured by how useful it is.

That sounds a tad cynical, and whilst that may be the status quo for some, I believe many people think differently

These ideas are predicated on a deep philosophical development that started with the rejection of special revelation (the idea that knowledge can be given to us directly from God).

Again, I would argue that point (though from a very personal perspective.

It seems that once special revelation is rejected, we are left with these conclusions:

- No one owns the truth--absolute truth cannot be known. Yet, how can we know this?

- All notions of metaphysics are fantasies--stories that are useful for making us feel better. Yet, that is a metaphysical statement.

- People believe what they believe because it suits them. Yet, a person can only believe that if it suits them.

What a pit of contradiction and inconsistency.

It would be; I am glad that I cannot live by that maxim.

Has philosophy reached a state of intellectual bankruptcy? What happened to having a philosophical bedrock from which we can build our lives with the bricks of reason?

I suppose it has (become a state of intelectual bankruptcy); we are in an ever changing world; cultures are merging (some), materialism plays a far greater part in ruling our lives......materialism is increasing day to day at an exponential rate - that is, if you buy into it.

I see perfectly good buildings being knocked to the ground, to make way for a designer's dream - if that was on the basis of us becoming "greener", I could accept it, but it seems to me that much of it is not done on that basis.

I see those same buildings that are being trashed, left furnished; and that furniture, in turn is trashed. That is not only an absurd waste, but is not helping the need for re-cycling.

I guess it is up to the individual; buy into materialism, or not - and the Philosophy that goes with whatever system you are buying into; I guess I am lucky, in that I have seen the equivalent of (say) Victorian society (in Africa, and at school when I was young)....I pity those who have not had a chance to savour that era.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by atofel

Has philosophy reached a state of intellectual bankruptcy?

I don't think so, my friend.

People still stand up for what is right while learning to embrace diversity. I see this as a GREAT thing, and not a negative one.

More often than not, the term bankruptcy is used with either "moral" or "Intellectual" is used when the person merely disagrees with the direction society seems to be taking. I would suggest that one learns to embrace the diversity and learn from it rather than dismiss it as being evil.