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

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by PureX

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").

If possible, help me understand what is the semantic difference between these two statements, then tell me if either of them is "absolute" (and how they fall short), and then if one would fit into my argument and the other one wouldn't:

1. Absolute truth can't be known.

2. Absolute truth can't be known by us humans, regardless of any external conditions and circumstances, and without regard for any specific human condition.

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.

What exactly is the *meaningful* distinction you are trying to make?

Metaphysics is the study of ontology--what is real, primary or principle in our existence.

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.

I thought it was clear that my use of the word "fantasy" meant folly, ridiculous, nonsense, and/or unreasonable.

So, what I am saying then, is that making the ontological statement "all metaphysics are fantasy", implies that the statement "all metaphysics is fantasy" is a statement that is folly, ridiculous, nonsense, and/or unreasonable.

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.

I agree that it is false. That is kind of my point. But it is my observation that it is a significant opinion of postmodernism.

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.

I agree, except for the "only" part. These conceptions lead us to the deconstruction of philosophy.

Also, when you say "our preconceptions about reality shape our experience and understanding of reality, past, present and future", are you implying this statement carries some truth? And to what degree?

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.

Wouldn't it then be a basic difference in the belief in a personal God? I find it odd that someone who believes in revelation from God can dismiss the "absolutist's perspective".

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".

I don't understand. How can a statement be both an absolute statement to one person and a relative statement to someone else? You said:

The statement: "No one owns the truth--absolute truth cannot be known" is not an absolute statement

Either something is an absolute statement or not. Or is it?

Once again I feel the destruction of philosophy upon us!

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

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.

My statement about "standing up for what is right" implies that we are to live by kindergarten rules. You can't fight with each other because one of you thinks something is right and the other one disagrees. Isn't that a way of imposing your beliefs on to someone who disagrees with them?

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.

Not only do I disagree with postmodernism, but in this case, I am saying that postmodernism is literally ruining philosophy. If we can't settle on "truth" why are we talking about it?

I would suggest that one learns to embrace the diversity and learn from it rather than dismiss it as being evil.

I too think diversity is great. I believe it is a bad idea to only surround oneself with like-minded people. That's how we get extremists. It is important to have people you respect with different opinions!

[Papersock]

I think all "isms" have their short-comings.

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

I agree, but from what I understand, that is not in agreement with postmodernism. No one can own the judgment of what is deemed real vs illusion, or what the correct standard is for declaring something absolutely true.

I haven't quite figured that out yet either. Obviously, I think what I believe is closest to what is true, or I wouldn't believe it. But so does everyone else, and they all use their own logic.
How do tell whose logic is more logical? There must be a way... I'm just not sure.

[Free4all]

Man, I wish I could say it as well as you just did....Spot on - let's here more.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Papersock

I haven't quite figured that out yet either. Obviously, I think what I believe is closest to what is true, or I wouldn't believe it. But so does everyone else, and they all use their own logic.
How do tell whose logic is more logical? There must be a way... I'm just not sure.

Good question. I think the answer is that logic can only get you from point A to point B. It is a tool that allows us to take several assumptions, and build a conclusion from them. However, logic cannot tell us what our assumptions are (only whether they are consistent).

People can have different world-views and still be logically consistent in their views. They just have different assumptions, or starting points.

I believe one of the most basic differences in assumption is whether we live in a purposeful world, or a mechanical/indifferent world.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

If possible, help me understand what is the semantic difference between these two statements, then tell me if either of them is "absolute" (and how they fall short), and then if one would fit into my argument and the other one wouldn't:

1. Absolute truth can't be known.

This is an incomplete statement. But I'll assume that you mean that absolute truth cannot be known by us humans.

The accuracy of this statement depends upon the definition of the term "known". My contention would be that for a human being to "know" something, he/she must have a personal objective experience of it. Such an experience will not give us a complete or perhaps even an accurate understanding of the object in question, but the immediate physical perception of it, and our resulting conceptualization of it, is what we humans call "knowing" something.

Since this "knowledge" is inherently limited and therefor always somewhat inaccurate, it would not be sufficient to verify the absolute truthfulness of it's own conceptualizations. At best, all we can do is establish the relative probability of the truthfulness of our conceptualizations. This is why I would say that we humans can only possess relative truth, and cannot possess absolute truth.

Keep in mind that this is not to say that no absolute truths exist (though I do believe there is a viable argument to be made in that direction), but that we human beings do not possess the capacity to recognize such truth were we encountering it.

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

2. Absolute truth can't be known by us humans, regardless of any external conditions and circumstances, and without regard for any specific human condition.

"Truth", I believe, is a function of the human intellect. It does not exist as a state or condition unto itself. It exists only as a concept produced in the human mind. "Truth" refers to the accuracy of our human conceptualizations of reality, relative to actual reality (actual reality being what IS, regardless of our limited perceptions and conceptualizations of it).

Absolute truth exists as a concept in our minds, as an ideal derived from a host of intellectual conceptualizations. But it can't ever be ratified by actual reality, which is what needs to happen for a "truth" to become "known" to us. Remember that to know something requires our objective experience of it. Yet truth itself is not an object, it's a concept. So the only experience we can have of absolute truth (truth itself) is subjective, rather than objective. And the only objective experience of truth we can have will be truthfulness as it is established by the relationships of objects in the world around us (we call these relative truths, as they are only true relative the the objects and relationships to which they are being applied).

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

What exactly is the *meaningful* distinction you are trying to make?

I am trying to point out that ideas are not objects. Ideas exist, and objects exist, but one is cause while the other is effect. "Truth" is a conceptualization of reality: an effect of reality. "Absoluteness" is a conceptualization of reality: an effect of reality. And because these are effects of reality, they don't have the same objective voracity as reality, itself. And because "knowledge" is based on the verification of effect through direct interaction with objective reality, we can't claim to "know" an absolute truth.

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

Metaphysics is the study of ontology--what is real, primary or principle in our existence.

But even this definition is contradicting itself: the study of ontology and the study of what is real are two different studies. One is about how we conceptualize reality, and the other is reality itself, regardless of our conceptualizations. So which is it? And what is "primary" and "principal" to reality? What does that even mean when we're talking about objective (external) reality? How can reality have a "principal"?

I'll be honest, I don't think it's post-modern philosophy that's in trouble, it's the presumption that "metaphysics" can be considered and treated like a philosophy or a science. If metaphysics seeks to answer questions that human beings are not capable of answering, through logic and reason, it will become useless as a category of intellectual endeavor.

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

I thought it was clear that my use of the word "fantasy" meant folly, ridiculous, nonsense, and/or unreasonable.

I don't agree that fantasy refers to a value-negative endeavor. Nonsense and lack of reason can be valuable intellectual tools. So can intuition and whimsy. So can any number of non-logical methods of thought and action. And I believe that it's with these tools that "metaphysics" can be a useful endeavor. Which is why I think we need to keep it away from traditional philosophy and science, which are logical and reason based.

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

So, what I am saying then, is that making the ontological statement "all metaphysics are fantasy", implies that the statement "all metaphysics is fantasy" is a statement that is folly, ridiculous, nonsense, and/or unreasonable.

Then I would agree with you about that part of the statement. Metaphysics is "fantasy", but fantasy does have it's value.

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

But it is my observation that it is a significant opinion of postmodernism.

Post-modernism is firmly rooted in the traditions of philosophy and science. It may seem as if it were becoming "metaphysical" on occasion, because it does focus on the "concept of concepts" so to speak, but it's not, really. Post-modernism does not leave the traditional philosophical rules of logic and reason behind, as does metaphysics. And perhaps this is why you are perceiving post-modernism as "looking down it's nose" at metaphysics. And maybe it even is. But that would be expected from any category of endeavor so firmly based on logic and reason.

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

I agree, except for the "only" part. These conceptions lead us to the deconstruction of philosophy.

All philosophy is a form of intellectual "deconstruction". It's just recently become aware of itself as such. That's why it's being called "post-modern" philosophy, now.

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

Also, when you say "our preconceptions about reality shape our experience and understanding of reality, past, present and future", are you implying this statement carries some truth? And to what degree?

The statement is true. Though these are not the only things that shape our experience and understanding of reality.

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

Wouldn't it then be a basic difference in the belief in a personal God? I find it odd that someone who believes in revelation from God can dismiss the "absolutist's perspective".

Understanding that absoluteness, like "God", is a human concept that cannot be verified by the human beings that conceive of or perceive them does not stop anyone from believing that they exist. "Post-modernism" is not antithetical to theism. At least it certainly isn't for me. An amaginz thing about we humans is that we can believe in several contradictory ideas simaltaneously. And we can do so logically and reasonably because of the "revelation" of relativity.

I can conceive of a state called "infinity" even though as a human being I will never be able to have direct objective experience of such a state, and therefor will never "know" if this state actually exists or not. And the same goes for many such conceptual states and ideals: God, perfection, omnipotence, etc.

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

I don't understand. How can a statement be both an absolute statement to one person and a relative statement to someone else? You said that: "The statement: "No one owns the truth--absolute truth cannot be known" is not an absolute statement".

Either something is an absolute statement or not. Or is it?

It depends upon our definitions of the words. It depends upon our understanding of the concepts that the words refer to. It depends upon how open our minds are to new ways of thinking and perceiving things. This is why even intended absolute truth statements are not necessarily what they appear to be. Everyone is perceiving and conceptualizing their experience of reality a little differently. What is true relative to one person's perceptions, conceptions, and experiences will not necessarily be true through someone else's. This is the reality of the human condition. And understanding this is the result of assimilating a "post-modern" vision of the fact of relativity in our experience of reality.

For many absolutists, this feels like the ground beneath their feet is de-materializing, and they are falling into an abyss of perpetual uncertainty. And I empathize with their emotional predicament, I really do. But the fact of relativity is not going to go away, and those who have assimilated it into their world-view cannot "unknow" it, now. It is a part of mankind's future, I think, like it or not. Whether it's a part of your future is up to you.

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

Once again I feel the destruction of philosophy upon us!

It's just the destruction of the old "absolutists" philosophy. Logic and reason have not been abandoned, and philosophy is still as crazy and confusing (and often useless) as it always was.

And no one has eliminated God, yet, either. *smile*

[Rolling_Stone]

Life is what we live, what we believe is just its conceptual interpretation. The problem is, people often confuse them.