- Local time
- Today, 07:35
- Aug 20, 2016
A pictorial summary of this thread thus far:
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Not sure about that, but the entirity of Kant was a reaction towards the radical skeptism that was brought on from empirists like Hume.
Is that a death threat?cases against religion can't be taken seriously at all btw, you have the law because of religion and without that you don't get to a point where you are typing out whatever response you may type out to this.
I don't fear eternal damnation and yet I'm a lawful citizen, your point seems to be that you don't break the law because you do fear eternal damnation, does this mean that without the threat of eternal damnation you wouldn't be a law abiding citizen?heck you might be robbed while reading this in a world without religion cause i can't see how you would justify anyone following the law without religion.
What? You can totally make a value system based on human values. If we say empathy and respect for other people should be core values, we can make values and laws based on that. We don't need religion to tell us that being robbed is really shitty and that we don't want that to happen to ourselves or other people. Even if you're just protecting your own ass, you'd still want robbery to be against the law.cases against religion can't be taken seriously at all btw, you have the law because of religion and without that you don't get to a point where you are typing out whatever response you may type out to this.
heck you might be robbed while reading this in a world without religion cause i can't see how you would justify anyone following the law without religion.
ok i'm baited. sources?heavens forbid one mentions that universal creation stories from the ancient scriptures have already been proven to be true by WMAP.
So basically, we have to instate a religious ruling class which decides for the population what everyone should believe in, regardless of the epistemic status of that belief? Just for the sake of keeping people under control? We had that shit before, in the middle ages. Needless to say, that sucked big time (except for the religious authorities, naturally).you might follow it, i might follow it, why would "they" follow it if following it doesn't do them any good and there's no "god" to make it all better?
granted my reasoning at the end here is lazy but the atheists and anti-theists have to recognise that you are dealing with the full bell curve of society, without a fundamental force at the base of society which serves to equalise everyone (because genetics literally renders us different) what fundamental force would you replace "god" with.
and dont say you would replace it with "truth" because you don't actually know what the truth is. you're just flesh and bone man without any divine truths delivered from up high that resonate with the collective and you will struggle to find any worthwhile reason to tell the "truth" because everyone believes satan can be tamed while jesus is forgotten about.
you are living under this state of control right now, very literally, you might have some complaints about it but you aren't flipping the table over and resetting the game are you?So basically, we have to instate a religious ruling class which decides for the population what everyone should believe in, regardless of the epistemic status of that belief? Just for the sake of keeping people under control? We had that shit before, in the middle ages. Needless to say, that sucked big time (except for the religious authorities, naturally).
so you mean the bible is the reason the law works, or...? What about secular countries like sweden?people tend to ignore why the law is actually functional at a fundamental level.
this is why the leader of the freeworld is sworn in using a bible, god, whatever that is, will level the scales if you so choose to imbalance them.
well we had this thing called the enlightement a couple of centuries ago. That's what our laws and morality are currently based on. This new wave of atheism has had next to zero effect on our morality and laws – it's just a bunch of people on youtube talking.it is also problematic when an "equalizer" is not suggested but the current one is being attacked by thoughtless arguments in a thoughtless era and good rebuttals that are more scientifically considered aren't held in high esteem by the new age church of atheism.
my cynicism is likely showing.
so I guess it would be a fair assumption to say that you put religion in the same epistemic status as any metaphysical narrative – spaghetti monster or whatever – but see it as a useful tool for keeping the sub-100 IQ population in check?but i digress, not all "believers" are the same and that's where narrative comes in to fill the gaps.
it doesn't matter if the lower half of the bell curve can't elucidate to you what god is or how the metaphysical landscape is setup so long as it get's them to follow the rules of the game in a productive manner.
in the best case scenario they don't even know it's a game.
yes secular countries that have strong mythological underpinings to their cultures.so I guess it would be a fair assumption to say that you put religion in the same epistemic status as any metaphysical narrative – spaghetti monster or whatever – but see it as a useful tool for keeping the sub-100 IQ population in check?
I cannot speak for the personal beliefs of politicians, but on paper, there's only one party that has anything to do with religion there, Christian Democrats, who have about 5% of the votes. Other than that it's comprised of a large part leftist-liberals (who obviously hate anything to do with chritianity), and right-center parties with more libertarian views – lower taxes etc. Virtually all politics in sweden revolves around economy and immigration. Religious narratives are virtually absent from the whole scene.Is Sweden really that secular in its political circles however? I imagine the political elite being religious. I'm really curious about the religiosity of Nordic countries tbh, that's where the Reformed tradition stemmed from (John Calvin, Netherlands etc).
once again, I think your view of history seems to be that we went from the middle ages straight into the youtube-atheist era. You're missing a 300-year period of development of largely anti-religious, secular values.yes secular countries that have strong mythological underpinings to their cultures.
it's the same thing just dressed up differently but people would rather pretend to be smart about observations that actually be smart about them.
all parties except Christian Democrats are indeed desperately trying to prevent the anti-immigration party from gettin any influence, which is what caused the chaos we're currently in. The Sweden Democrats are big enough to sort keep their hand on the scales and prevent any coalition from taking power without cooperating with them, yet no one wants to cooperate with them, so it's a complete deadlock situation.Ouch, sorry to hear that. Are the conservatives getting pushed out? That's usually bad news for a nation, especially if the country has a long history. Also I'm just curious, how relevant is the monarchy there? Does the PM have to report to the king and so forth?
sweden has been ruled by leftist-liberals for the past century, and that ideology is extremely pervasive in the country (or has been, until this year's election). This election outcome was the worst outcome for the leftist-liberals in the past century, so in that sense, things are improving.Also I'm just curious as to why a nation of 5 mil can't handle that immigration problem. Korea's been extremely vigilant about our immigration so we hardly let anyone in lol. We've only allowed people to live on Jeju Island which is like 50 km off the southern coast or something.
yes the culture ebbs and flows between order and chaos.once again, I think your view of history seems to be that we went from the middle ages straight into the youtube-atheist era. You're missing a 300-year period of development of largely anti-religious, secular values.yes secular countries that have strong mythological underpinings to their cultures.
it's the same thing just dressed up differently but people would rather pretend to be smart about observations that actually be smart about them.
yesTo be fair secularism really did take over the religious order, as in the hegemony of the religious order died with the rise of the Enlightenment. But we aren't really in an era of the Enlightenment either- after the Enlightenment we had the Romanticist era where liberal Christianity was flourishing (but then declining again) then the World Wars happened. The predicament we are in now with the mess that is religious pluralism, or basically the reign of postmodernism is the point in time we're in now.
Talking about the world in a political manner, we had a narrative up until Bush (War on Terror) but after him we went into a phase of pragmatism with Obama where there was no narrative (postmodernism) then back to this neo-fake-news-narrative with this Trump era. Dunno how much of this is any use since I'm pulling it out of my ass, but take it as you will.
Sure no worries - that post was just me being in a trolling mood. If my natal chart indicates anything it's that I have the most unrelenting daddy issues of all.Eh, I'm mostly playing to a third party audience while also making the thread into a sort of index so as to restrict the dominance of certain individuals in the future by redirecting future interactions here, while learning a few new terms along the way.
It's a mix of ego expression and some unlikely yet flickering hope for community betterment.
I can rephrase what TGM says more or less I think. (Feel free to correct me TGM.)Say, would you mind rephrasing what he says in your words?
I haven't read much of this thread, but since you've invoked me, I'll comment on the difference between 'why' and 'how' and on ietsism.
A 'why' is the explanation of a phenomenon from a final cause, a 'how' its explanation from an efficient cause. The final cause of a phenomenon is always some intended outcome, a temporal consequence which follows from it if certain conditions are met, whereas its efficient cause is its cause sensu stricto, its immediate temporal precedent from which it follows inexorably. You are right in saying that 'why' is subjective in that the intended outcome must be intended by some one, who is none other than the subject of the objectification of that outcome in some temporally preceding phenomenon, which is attractive or, to borrow a psychology term, has incentive salience to him. To complete the duality, the cause of a phenomenon sensu stricto does not necessarily have incentive salience, nor even any particular motivational property: in this sense, 'how' is objective. To conclude, the 'why' of a thing is its subjective motive, its 'how' its objective cause. Materialists think to assimilate the former into the latter in accordance with their overall metaphysical programme of perversely denying the subject and recognizing only objects, which should be no less an object of ridicule than its physical cognate in the fool who emerges triumphantly from the wilderness to declare that he has found only a multiplicity of trees and no forest.
Concerning ietsism, I'm unfamiliar with the doctrine, but it based on your broad description of it as the belief in an "undetermined transcendent reality", it appears to be an adaptation of Kant's transcendental idealism. If by 'transcendent' you mean 'not immanent', then this transcendent reality would be equivalent to the Kantian thing in itself, which is completely unknowable. All analogies, including your dimensional analogy, are inadequate for describing what it might be because it need not share any of the properties of our immanent intuitive knowledge, including time and space as conditions of possibility for other properties.
I will have more to say about subject-object duality and the thing in itself in my next thread (when I get around to posting it), to which I hope you'll redirect any responses to my previous posts, should you still feel bound to make them.
This difficulty vanishes if we distinguish between what is objective and what is absolute. An objective truth is true for the subject of that object, an absolute truth for all subjects. So, while it may be objectively true for me at this moment that one phenomenon follows from another (e.g. smoke from fire), it may not be true for everyone at all times. To claim that such an immanent causal law is absolute (e.g. to claim that smoke always follows from fire) is to make a problematic judgment; contingent and necessary successions of phenomena are indistinguishable from each other, as Hume famously pointed out.
Now, to tie this back into my original point, it's all the same whether one laments that all causal laws may be situational illusions or rejoices that the shimmering veil of nature appears to exhibit some universal patterns: causes are efficient only in objects/phenomena and do not explain the subject.
You are extremely right to correct me Serac. I was shamelessly equating Kant's classical example of an analytic statements with some kind of enthymeme (statements in which the premises are implicit) of deductive reasoning, and I also do tend to equate inductive reasoning with synthetic a posteriori statements. Or you could say I was considering that analytic statements were necessarily so by virtue of being reacheable through deduction if you like. Clearly my own Kant game is rusty and I am shamelessly twisting his concepts around any which way I like. Possibly because I never did give much of a toss about him :'(
I was curious because when people idolize others, it tends to be because they are in deep agreement or because they are projecting own views onto them without really understanding or actually being in agreement with them. So, I was wondering which was the case here. Though, I guess i'm just not that interested to follow up.I can rephrase what TGM says more or less I think. (Feel free to correct me TGM.)
Ah. I thought it might be that :3. Well I still had fun unpacking TGM's excessively erudite (no offense TGM) statements.I was curious because when people idolize others, it tends to be because they are in deep agreement or because they are projecting own views onto them without really understanding or actually being in agreement with them. So, I was wondering which was the case here. Though, I guess i'm just not that interested to follow up.I can rephrase what TGM says more or less I think. (Feel free to correct me TGM.)
@higs Good analysis, the only thing I'd like to add is that, according to Kant's transcendental idealism, the chair-in-itself does not necessarily share any of the properties of your phenomenal representation of the chair, including extension and space and mobility in time. Time and space are a priori conditions of the possibility of human experience—the motion of matter in time and space takes place in the mind.
For this reason, posing the "hard problem" of how the motion of objects "gives rise to" the subject of experience seems to me to be nonsense in the strictest Wittgensteinian sense, like asking, How wide is red? The motion of objects in time and space as a manifestation of natural forces (causality) presupposes the subject of experience as their unifying principle—objects exist for a subject—so how can the former be the cause of the latter?
Instead of asking how the mind arises from matter, we should be asking what is the relation between the two Cartesian principles, between the unity of subjective experience and the multiplicity of its objects. In my opinion, Western philosophy's best answer to this question is Schopenhauer's double-aspect monism, whereby the Will is understood to be the principle of unity and the 'inner' aspect of itself, natural forces being its 'outer' aspect. Causality is at once a 'world-knot' spun out of the thread of the Will and the thread itself.
Oh I definitely think that the "chair in itself" must share corresponding properties with my phenomenal representation, else every prediction I can make about the world is an absolute miracle. That's literally the only reason I'm a scientific realist, because Halley could predict the coming of the comet. I think there is a correspondence between the structure of phenomena and the structure of noumena. There's a structural correspondence, which is why maths works for predicting, it charts the relations between things, even if the entities themselves are not accurate.
When you say that "Time and space are a priori conditions of the possibility of human experience—the motion of matter in time and space takes place in the mind." -> You're gonna have to flesh out that interpretation or argument or whatever for me cuz I don't see how your first sentence implies that it exists only in my mind. I haven't nerded out on Kant so much but it seems to me like what he says means more that you have to postulate time and space as independent real entities in some form because of the way our own mind is structured. That's my interpretation of that sentence anyway. How could the mental categories of time and space exist phenomenally if the world were not structured so in some form? I thought that was the point, he took idealism and deduced non sollipsism. Again though, my Kant is super rusty.
Okay first of all, there are two Wittgensteins. The first Wittgenstein says that any talk of God, morals, metaphysics, aesthetics or anything that is not verifiable is tosh (which discredits our entire conversation here as nonsense, and especially discredits Schopenhauer as nonsense); the second Wittgenstein says anything subjective is nonsense when spoken about, which also discredits our entire conversation and any talk of phenomena (including the hard problem and probably Kant too.) In short, Wittgenstein thinks most stuff is nonsense, I don't live by his epistemological rules XD.
Yes the world appears to me phenomenally, and this is my only access to said world, but I don't see how this means that it does not exist independently of myself, and I note no argument here that shows me that subjective experience is in any way the unifying principle of causality. The old tree falling in the forest thing. The most intuitive answer is that the tree produces waves that would be interpreted as sound if there was something there to detect it. Your view is coming across as strangely solipsist. Possibly a misunderstanding of what you're saying on my part. (Possibly not read enough Kant .)
Hmmm. The two cartesian principles ? As in his dualism? mind and matter ? Seems to me to be re-stating the hard problem. Asking what is the relationship between the two seems to me to be the same as asking how one could arise from the other.
Look, I like Schopenhauer, he's a good writer and has interesting intuitions on all sorts of stuff (not so much on females ), but I never really understood his concept of will. Seems he doesn't really define it. He just introspects, sees his own intentionality and extrapolates it as the thing that makes up the fabric of the world. I mean it's interesting, but for me intention is a FUNCTIONAL aspect of the mind, and is not the defining aspect of phenomenality. I can easily conceive of a cognition that has no will of it's own but has a subjective experience. Say a machine that has a single qualia of red for example. That's all it does. Perceives red and has an accompanying subjective sensation of it. Where's the "will" ? I mean "will" seems to be synonymous with desire, the ability for a cognition to pose a goal and exert force towards achieving it. I don't see how this is a universal aspect of anything.
This is why the "hard problem" as a contemporary formalization of the problem is for me, the most superior formulation so far, it isolates what we are talking about very specifically and why throughout the ages we have had this fucking weird dualistic intuition, after all why the hell would it cross anyone's mind to talk about souls? What's the referent ? How odd. It turns out we're not talking about will, or perception, or desire, or emotions, or any of the basic functions of the mind, we're talking about the subjective sensation that accompanies all these functions. It's incredibly clarifying. You can't answer a question unless it's been posed properly, that's why it's revolutionary.