Sociology of philosophy

If philosophy doesn’t have anything metaphysical to offer, in the way of insight or ambition, it dries up and comes to a dead end.
Western intellectual tradition is probably the best testimony to this – around the turn of the eighteenth century it was advocated that there is no serious intellectual interest in anything that is not physical.
The result is that the social role of the philosopher diminished to practically nil.

On the other hand of course, there were persons in tow with claims of the highest absolute truth ... and that kind of gave them a moral blank cheque that enabled them to do anything and everything. So obviously there are real problems with this runaway absolutism also.

The middle ground is that metaphysical claims be reasonable. By reasonable, I don’t mean that metaphysical claims be based in physical science (which is obviously absurd). Rather, it is meant that going to the extreme of cutting off ambitious metaphysical claims from reason doesn’t assist the sociology of philosophy anymore than cutting them off from investigation.

Yes or No?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Render unto science that which is science's
and render unto ______________
that which is __________´s.

To me this is kinda Cartesianish. Accepting a split I am not sure I want to accept.

When you get up close and personal with the physical it ain't so physical.

I also think this leads to or is connected to physical bad or not as good as whatever is meta-physical, which I also think has a lot of problems.

It's odd, I can't tell if I agree with you or disagree with you.

Perhaps you could give me an example.

What would be a reasonable metaphysical claim and how would you investigate it?

(by the way, I liked the topic)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

not sure what you are getting at .... even Descartes had something metaphysical to offer

well thats a metaphysical claim

the physical has its right issues in the right circumstances ... but a world view (or philosophy) that totally neglects the metaphysical makes for a diminished world view (or philosophy)

It's odd, I can't tell if I agree with you or disagree with you.

Perhaps you could give me an example.

What would be a reasonable metaphysical claim and how would you investigate it?

(by the way, I liked the topic)[/QUOTE]
ok
suppose someone claims that people who belong to a certain class, country or creed are outside of the mercy of god and therefore you can do anything you want to them.
One could rationally challenge this by asking if all living entities are ultimately created by god and are eternally connected to him, why is it that some particular creed is outside of the connection?

Like this one can draw up many examples.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I meant Descartes as a metaphor, the idea of splitting 'things' into two classes, here physical and metaphysical.

OK. It does seem to be one that materialist physicists also make on occasion.

I agree in practical terms. I mean, I believe I know what you mean and I know how these terms tend to get used, so if someone claims all metaphysics is BS, I think they have an impovrished worldview and perhaps more importantly experience of the world. On the other hand I am not sure I accept the split. I am not saying that everything is 'really' physical. I just don't think there is a boundary or that the physical is so physical, but rather there is a spectrum of experiences, of which some have those qualities we call physical more than others.

Thanks for the example. I can see how you can approach such a claim reasonably and try to corner someone into seeing a contradiction. However people believe in idiosyncratic deities with uneven approaches to creation. Once they hit the 'that's the way God is, he said it' level, I don't think we can prove very much to eachother. Further it seems like there are metaphysical unevennesses to reality - not that I buy the kind of immoral one you used as an example.

I hope that was clear. I am basically wondering what use there is of going at metaphysical claims like that one rationally.

 

I think a lot depends on the circumstances in which one would attempt a rational approach at such metaphysical claims as above. That is, whether one is discussing with a perpetrator of such a claim or with a victim of such a claim. Both the perpetrator and the victim believe the claim, but the claimed truth is beneficial only for the perpetrator while damning for the victim.

I suspect that someone attempting to rationally discuss a questionable metaphysical claim may have to address one set of its aspects when discussing it with the perpetrator, and another set of its aspects when discussing it with the victim. The perpetrator's problems might be different than the victim's.

Given that one perceives the perpetrator and the victim are suffering due to their views and so wishes to help them, there definitely can be some use in addressing questionable metaphysical claims which they both hold to be true. This seems more obvious in the case of the victim.

I'm speaking from experience here - I myself have been a victim of such questionable metaphysical claims. Long story short - I actually hold the belief that Christians are better people than anyone else, including myself, and that I am just a pagan who will go to hell for all eternity, and it is right so. I don't agree with this, I don't like it, but I believe it - childhood and youth conditioning is strong like that. And I often act on this belief, I am quite pessimistic and passive about my life, thinking that I'm going to go to hell anyway, so why bother doing anything. The consequences of being conditioned into such questionable metaphysical claims are serious.

I've been wracking my mind for years now trying to disprove those questionable metaphysical claims - obviously, despite the conditioning, I am still unable to ease into the prospect of being burnt alive for all eternity. So I've been looking for a way out, and rational analysis seems like a promising option.

 

A couple of observations:

1) In this case it would seem you are both perpetrator and victim.

2) Given your experience with perpetrators on the outside, I would think you might be more skeptical about how well rational analysis will work on the inside.

3) I damn well know what you mean and it is not easy.

 

Of course. As a believer, I am a perpetrator, too, even though I am the one who loses. Perhaps a better way to qualify the two roles would be "winner" and "loser", or "the advantaged one" and "the disadvantaged one".

Agreed. I have found to be far more optimistic in trying to reason with actual people who hold those questionable metaphysical claims than in trying to reason with my "inner Christian". Trying to reason with the "inner Christian" is like simultaneously trying to reason with a hundred different Christians.
Still, rational analysis seems like a good option. If nothing else, pursuing it gets me into the company of people who are more advanced than myself and there have been some unpredicatble benefits in this which I am very grateful for.

It's good to know I'm not alone.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My first reaction is that it is very important which terms fit best. That this is deep insight - perhaps not for you, knowing them already, but at least for others to understand the dynamic.

Yes, and the inner __________ has the advantage of 1) all of our reasoning skills and 2) the motivation of our terror. A powerful combination for us to unravel.

A nice case for following at least certain urges.

1) is not everyone like this?
2) if not why not?
3) if so why don't they notice?
4) what are the implications of the answers to 1-3?
(but then I fear I am straying from LG's OP if not his thread title)

 

So basically, would it be correct to say the implied issue here is the scope and importance of reasonability?

 

It seems not. At least as far as open declarations go, some people maintain such scenarios of life where they are always the advantaged ones, the winners.

Good question. How come some people are or at least seem to be sure that they are the winners in life? I have no idea how this occurs, but I suspect that many factors might be at play, and some of them such over which the individual has no direct control over.

Actually, I think this line of inquiry could fit in well with the OP. Reasonability after all has a lot to do with how people actually live their lives, day to day.

 

Yes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Which can be a forgiving attitude for those in subgroup below...

I can divide these into two subgroups: 1) those who make me angry or afraid and 2) those who seem to feel like winners yet also have empathy and seem to appreciate non-winners.

 

also throwing a spanner in the works of Fideism
:booo:

 

Philosophy has plenty to offer, it is science that is at fault! Science is based upon the senses, and we all know that there are many things that exist which are not sens-able. Thought, emotion, knowledge etc.

 

Metaphysics is the study of logical belief in matter and energy. This is all there is.

 

Not really. Fideism is irrefutable.

The question is, what to do with opposing views? Is it necessary to refute them before one can move on? Can one move on without having refuted opposing views, and if yes, on what grounds can one move on?

Is it possible to be content with a choice unless one is convinced that all the other choices are wrong or worse?

 

only because it refutes the mere introduction of moral rationalism

If one view makes another view untenable, it creates a dilemna which has to be ressolved (according to the weight of the view of course - I mean if you say patatoes and I say powtatoes I probably won't dwell on it so much ... but if you say that god has created this world with inherent bizarre moral contradictions (like say, if you merely choose the wrong religion for worshipping god you will burn for all eternity in hell, no matter how sincere a practitioner you are) simply to humble mortal intelligence, it raises questions why worship such an immoral god)

 

I don't understand, please explain. Do you mean that fideism is irrefutable only because it refutes the introduction to moral rationalism, but refutes nothing else?

How would you refute fideism?

But the question is also whether it is possible to refute a stance without unquestionably holding some other stance. And also whether it is possible to come to unquestionably hold a stance while there are other stances present in the mind that oppose said stance.

The standard Christian line is something to the effect of: "God is not immoral. If you think God is immoral, this is your fault. Your human standards of morality are skewed. If you think that there is something wrong with the notion that it is unconditional love to torture some of your children for all eternity in hell, then it is you who lacks understanding. Given that you have not accepted Jesus as your savior, it is no wonder you lack proper understanding. God must be worshipped, regardless of what you think God is like or isn't like. It is not up to you to judge God's morality. If you think there are any contradictions in the Bible or between what the Bible says and what Christians say, this is just proof of your lack of proper understanding."

- And this line seems irrefutable. I suppose to many people, this doesn't matter, but it matters to some people, like me, who have grown up to believe it. It's like a trap where every attempt to get out makes it tighter.

 

more like that if an argument undermines the value of rational logic, it has no scope for being discussed or analyzed in a rational manner

in brief - If god is the reservoir of all moral and compassionate qualities why can I act on an (apparently) higher platform than him?
Or alternatively, if god is that person to who no one can be imagined as being equal to or greater, why can I imagine a greater version of god than one who sends people to hell for all eternity for making the simple mistake of choosing the wrong religion, despite all sincerity?

This issue is highly steeped in issues of epistemology and ontology. In short, any view on anything rests upon some axiomatic truths if you take it back far enough ... and at the core of choosing one set of axiomatic truths over another are one's values.

I guess I would expect this to be unpacked a bit.
I mean, if I decided to express my love to you by sending you to a POW camp, what would you think?

I would argue that I have no problem worshipping god ... simply I doubt the image you are presenting of god is fully accurate

this has grave epistemological ramifications.
If there is no way to discern an error between what a christian says and what the bible says, it sounds very easy to corrupt teachings

I guess it's easier to move on from something when one has a more positive alternative

 

Agreed.
But many Christian proselytizers (and you will go to hell for all eternity if you don't agree with them) say that this doesn't matter and that God cannot be understood by using logic or rationality anyway.
Discussions with them (either in person or with the "inner Christian") basically come down to being battless of will, a matter of brute force, physical and mental.
Of course, one would be prudent to choose one's battles wisely and thus avoid those that seem impossible to win - but when eternity in hell is at stake, then it seems one must fight all such battles.

Says the Christian proselytizer: "That is what you think. If you truly would be sincere, then you would have seen that only Jesus is your lord and savior, and you would worship no other god, by no other name."

Agreed.
But again, per the Christian default (or at least one of those defaults), the true values of any human are connected with the fact that he is atheistic and evil. But if that is so, then a human cannot deliberately choose good or Jesus - yet he will be held responsible and punished if he doesn't and so on and on.
Bah. Please bear with me. I've attempted a what looks like a formal solution to the problem, I'll write it at the end of this post.

I wouldn't be surprised. Nothing personal against you (

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), but to my mind, no absurdity is foreign ...

Yes ...

One thing I have continually witnessed with arguments made by Christians from various denominations is that they have the tendency to be formulated as oppositions to anything the non-Christian says. This even leads the Christian into contradicting himself - which, again, he resolves by opposing the one who points this out. Anything the non-Christian would say, that Christian would deny, oppose, correct, improve, and generally interpret anything what the non-Christian would say or do in such a manner that it would be to the non-Christian's disadvantage or make him look stupid.

It's basically the same as any stupid fight between two angry people, or one angry and one calm person, just that the content nominally has to do with God.
It's as if the basic inclination of those Christians would be to oppose, to defend themselves, to attack, and to be angry - and their arguments about God are just this opposition, defense, attack, anger dressed up in a what looks like theistic arguments. This isn't always so, of course, but in my experience, it often has been so.

So in the spirit of this, some Christians would argue that surely there is a way to discern an error between what a Christian says and what the Bible says, one must only read the Bible with a sincere heart, and the Bible is clear and easy to understand anyway.
But on another occasion, the same Christian would argue that unless you have the Spirit with you and proper study, you will not be able to understand the Bible ...

But here to the formal refutation I've mentioned earlier. I apologize that it is rather lenghty, but I tried to take care of all the loopholes. I enumerated the steps, but didn't specifically mark which are premises and which are conclusions -


Introduction:
There is the possibility that the truth is something I find repugnant; such as "It indeed is an act of love to torture your child in hell for all eternity."
Just because I find it repugnant does not mean it is impossible for it to be true; therefore, I need something else to reject said repugnant notion.
A formal rejection seems like the best option.


Process:
1. Statement S: "It indeed is an act of love to torture your child in hell for all eternity. You should therefore not reject Jehovah as your one and only God on the grounds that you find it immoral and unloving to torture your child in hell for all eternity."
2. If S is true, then this would have grave consequences for me, for I would be obligated to accept Jehovah as my God and worship him, whether I like it or not; if I don't accept him, I would go to hell for all eternity. I certainly do not with to go to hell, for any amount of time.
3. I can neither prove nor disprove S within a foreseeable time and with foreseeable means.
4. I cannot accept S because I find it repugnant.
5. But I fear S might be true.
6. I feel pressured to accept S - Christians are pressuring me to accept S under the threat of eternal hellfire.
7. I cannot accept S directly (see 3).
8. I can only accept S via trusting that Christians are authorities for it.
9. To trust Christians are authorities for S, I would need to be sure that they know better than me and everyone else who thinks differently than the Christians.
10. In short, to trust Christians are authorities for S, I would need to hold they are omniscient.
11. To hold that they are omniscient, I would need to be omniscient myself, for otherwise, I could not assess whether someone else is omniscient.
12. I am not omniscient.
13. To give Christians credence that they are omniscient would be an act of presuming myself omniscient.
14. To give Christians credence that they are omniscient or at least that they know better than everyone else would be an act of presuming that everyone who disagrees with the Christians is wrong.
15. But as I know I am not omniscient, accepting a presumption as true despite knowing that it is only a presumption would be an act of knowingly acting on a delusion while claiming it is the truth.
16. To give Christians credence that they are omniscient would be an act of me knowingly acting on a delusion while claiming it is the truth.
17. Knowingly acting on a delusion while claiming it is the truth, is wrong.
18. Accepting S is wrong.
19. Even if Christians are authoritative for S, as I do not know that nor can I recognize it, I am free from the charge of deliberate rebellion against them.
20. Even if S is true, I am free from the charge of deliberately rejecting S against better knowledge.
21. The only charges that could be made against me are: that I refused to have blind faith (that I refused to give indiscriminate credence); that I refused to gamble.
22. If S is true, then according to steps 1-18 there is nothing I can deliberately do to prevent the negative outcome (ie. eternal hell) for myself. To prevent the negative outcome, I would have to act irrationally / deliberately become irrational. It is impossible to deliberately act irrationally / deliberately become irrational.
23. As there is nothing I can deliberately do to prevent the negative outcome, and I refuse to have blind faith or gamble, I might as well do as I see fit, even if this means disagreeing with the Christians and risking eternal hell.


What do you think?

Sure. The problem is only how to have faith in that alternative. I suspect this faith could be an entirely formal, rational matter, like something I outlined above in the 23 steps.
It seems like there is always someone or some view according to whom I will go to hell for all eternity or live a meaningless life unless I do as they say. It doesn't seem possible to come up with a view or course of action that would satisfy everyone and every view of how things should be done, how life should be lived.