Questionable Merits

[InformedIgnorance]

Okay, now recently I was having a discussion and I remarked that there was a range of different literature (and discussions) that I found to have extremely minimal value, which the other person vehemently disagreed with me about. So allow me now to outline the problem I find with a certain type of spirituality based discussions. When a claim is made, in order for that claim and discussion to have meaning, I need the following criteria to be met.

The phrases and terms being used need to be well described (perhaps even defined) without use of subjective terminology; particularly when: the terms used are polymorphic and are used to relate to non-objective and/or non-natural subjects. With the terms and phrases thus well described, I can then determine if I can reconcile the communication into an understandable series of concepts. If I cannot do this then I would need to receive clarification from the author/speaker; given the highly subjective, experiential based nature of the comprehension of the subject matter, no other individual can be said to truly be capable of dispelling the lack of clarity, but discussions with other individual may assist to an extent. Failing to complete this step means that there is no point in proceeding.

With the concepts underlying the communication identified, I can then determine if the result is logical. If it is not logical then (if held to be subject to logic) it is false or (if held not to be subject to logic) it is indeterminable and not worth discussing further as any further analysis is inherently rational, yet this is fundamentally undermined by the inclusion of non rational components. If the resulting conceptual underpinnings are logical we may proceed, the result is that I might well have a rewarding discussion about the subject matter and can examine the concept and related claims with a degree of reliability with which reason can be applied.

Now that we have ascertained that it is possible to have a rational discussion about the subject, I then need to determine if it is a discussion that I feel is meritorious, this is largely based on whether or not it is consequential. Therefore I must be of the opinion that discussion about such a thing matters. There are a few ways that I recognise that a discussion about a subject might have merit:
Passive (position merit is independent of the audience)
-The subject did exist and that existence had effect (Residual)
-The subject does exists and that existence has effect (Actual)
-The subject may exist in the future and that possibility has effect (Potential)
Active (discussion merit is dependent on the audience)
-The (question of the) subject is considered and that consideration may have effect (Intellectual)
-The (question of the) subject is accepted and that acceptance may have effect (Belief)

The potential Residual, Actual and Potential merit all require an essential prerequisite question be addressed: Can the subject exist? Which requires the subject be defined and the question of that existence addressed. However each of these three potential merits are passive, for any individual who does not already accept this position such merit is only activated (brought to bear) in discourse only through the presentation of argument or evidence such as to convince the audience that the position is true (which again requires that it be shown to be possible).

The potential Intellectual merit does not require that the possibility of the subject's existence be addressed; however if it is not, then the merit is significantly constrained due to lack of reliability or utility, instead becoming more abstract and philosophically based merit. On the other hand Intellectual merit does require that consideration about the subject be reliably subject to logic and rationality. The most important part of the content (and delivery style) are objective in nature considerations such as consistency, factual accuracy and predictive utility (though for the philosophical merit, consistency is more important than the other two).

The potential Belief merit does not require that the possibility of the subject's existence be addressed either, nor is it of material importance because it is already ascribed. The most important part of the content (and delivery style) is the emotional impact thereof.


Most spiritual literature fails to objectively describe (let alone define) the terms and phrases used. Those that do pass that hurdle often fail at the second, because MANY spiritual subjects are claimed to be unconstrained by logical states (and further, that they are beyond objective examination) - this precludes all potential Intellectual merit. Those that manage to pass these hurdles seem few and far between; they have defined their terms and accepted that logic and rationality are capable of examining the concepts with some measure of reliability; for that alone they deserve applause but furthermore they also happen to have sufficient grounds for philosophical interest.

Beyond that, those that reach this point and do not rely on the assumption of acceptance of these subjects (without having justified the assertion) may well have profound merit.

 

[Parsimony]

Agreed. Failure to define terms can lead to the equivocation fallacy. I also believe putting something beyond logic puts it beyond rational discussion. Take note that doesn't mean that it can't go beyond "common sense", as common sense has given us some gems of misunderstandings in the past (geocentrism and the flat Earth, for example). Logic must be something more fundamental than common sense.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Indeed, that too needs to be defined as pertains to the discussion lol

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The phrases and terms being used need to be well described (perhaps even defined) without use of subjective terminology; particularly when: the terms used are polymorphic

Regarding polymorphic- do you mean polysemous? That is, understanding that polymorphic means possessing many forms, given that morphology is a linguistic, philosophy of language, and philological term (among its use elsewhere), if you mean "has many meanings" rather than "can appear in different forms", that would be key. Also, as in many languages (perhaps most) inflection/morphology (word form) is used to indicate grammatical enses like "the subject of the verb", if by "polymorphic" you mean "has many forms" do you mean this in the sense of morphology?

and are used to relate to non-objective and/or non-natural subjects

Non-natural seems pretty clear. I'm not sure what you mean by "non-objective". Do you mean perceptual, conceptual, and/or experiential topics? Could you supply examples?

With the terms and phrases thus well described, I can then determine if I can reconcile the communication into an understandable series of concepts.

I have a feeling my background is causing unnecessary difficulties here. Do you mean that, if the use of language is understandable through rendering certain terms and/or phrases more specific, it is easier to determine if you can interpret the meaning behind the communication?

With the concepts underlying the communication identified, I can then determine if the result is logical.

Logical (at least for logicians) refers to valid inference/justification. In other words, it requires accepting the premises as being true. For example, assuming that Homer is true/accurate, we can logically infer certain things about the nature of the gods. Do you mean logical in this sense, or logical as in "rational"?

If it is not logical then (if held to be subject to logic) it is false or (if held not to be subject to logic) it is indeterminable and not worth discussing further as any further analysis is inherently rational, yet this is fundamentally undermined by the inclusion of non rational components.

This seems to be an equating of logic with rationality. If it isn't, could you expand upon it?

If the resulting conceptual underpinnings are logical we may proceed

Conclusions of a schizophrenic that use as premises hallucinogenic-based evidence can be perfectly logical. Logic tells us how to proceed given premises, not how to evaluate premises.

with a degree of reliability with which reason can be applied.

Could you expand on this?

Now that we have ascertained that it is possible to have a rational discussion about the subject, I then need to determine if it is a discussion that I feel is meritorious, this is largely based on whether or not it is consequential.

This I think I get. If it appears that there is the potential for what one perceives as being rational discourse, one could still find that such discourse is without merit.

There are a few ways that I recognise that a discussion about a subject might have merit:
Passive (position merit is independent of the audience)
-The subject did exist and that existence had effect (Residual)
-The subject does exists and that existence has effect (Actual)
-The subject may exist in the future and that possibility has effect (Potential)
Active (discussion merit is dependent on the audience)
-The (question of the) subject is considered and that consideration may have effect (Intellectual)
-The (question of the) subject is accepted and that acceptance may have effect (Belief)

I have to apologize. My background in languages and linguistics is, I think, messing with me here (not to mention the fact that it is past 4 am). Passive, active, subject, residual, potential, etc., are all grammatical and/or linguistic terms. By "subject" do you mean "topic"?

Which requires the subject be defined and the question of that existence addressed.

How so?

However each of these three potential merits are passive, for any individual who does not already accept this position such merit is only activated (brought to bear) in discourse only through the presentation of argument or evidence such as to convince the audience that the position is true (which again requires that it be shown to be possible).

I'm not sure what this says other than that if someone doesn't accept something as true, then they don't accept it as true.

On the other hand Intellectual merit does require that consideration about the subject be reliably subject to logic and rationality.

Why?

The most important part of the content (and delivery style) are objective in nature

Language is necessarily inter-subjective, and never objective.

The potential Belief merit does not require that the possibility of the subject's existence be addressed either, nor is it of material importance because it is already ascribed.

This sounds like the beginnings of a probability approach (usually Bayesian) to subjective epistemological evaluation of some claim given evidence proffered and current beliefs accounted for. As such, though, it would be better rephrased to reflect this. If not, I'm definitely missing something you are trying to communicate.

Most spiritual literature fails to objectively describe (let alone define) the terms and phrases used.

That also describes basically the entirety of quantum physics as well as a fair amount of cosmology and particle physics.

this precludes all potential Intellectual merit

What is "potential Intellectual merit"?

Beyond that, those that reach this point and do not rely on the assumption of acceptance of these subjects (without having justified the assertion)

Justified true belief is, so far as I know, altogether unsolved.