Who knows these things?
One of my older threads talked about systematically inchoate questions.
In it we discussed that ethical questions cannot be intellectualized. They can be practised and thought about; but, not really analyzed.
Now, we have a lot of questions about God, life, and such. But, aren't these questions epistemically inchoate?
Thoughts?
In it we discussed that ethical questions cannot be intellectualized. They can be practised and thought about; but, not really analyzed.
Now, we have a lot of questions about God, life, and such. But, aren't these questions epistemically inchoate?
Thoughts?
Comments (53)
If we take the idea of "What should we humans be aiming for in life"? That would be a rather vague question, but it can be broken down and made more concrete by explication. Is your criteria for inchoate, that it can be answered in too many ways for there to be any common ground to advance any position? If so, I may have to agree with that. However, if by inchoate you mean that it cannot be fleshed out, then I don't agree as clearly anyone can make claims about the subject matter that advance a position in this or that direction.
Yes. It is too vague a question for there to be useful agreement on.
I would phrase this in terms of the limits of the analytic approach. These things are understood globally, not locally. What Billy means by 'God' or 'truth' is a function of Billy's entire personality. If you want to know what Billy means, you have to listen to Billy as a whole. You have to 'become' Billy via empathy and learning the language of Billy.
As far as epistemology relates to these matters, the situation is similar. A person can try with limited success to formalize their epistemological way of being. But much of what is going on is 'behind' any particular sentence. This connects to your post on attitudes. 'Attitude' points at a global approach or a fundamental grasping of existence in a certain way. This fundamental grasping is not the sort of thing that can be squeezed into a few sentences (or, if so, only with great talent via an apt metaphor.)And this strong metaphor as metaphor doesn't give itself way cheaply. It requires interpretation.
We might say that an atomic approach (a low level epistemology that analyzes single words) toward God, ethics, aesthetics, etc. attempts to make this approach easier by making it impersonal and algorithmic. In some ways it offers individuals a way to hide from the depth of the questions behind some inherited and unquestioned method. Lots of public intellectuals fill their fans with a sense of their supreme 'rationality.' And yet this concept of rationality is often shallow and has not been subjected to criticism. So we end up with a 'rational' mob.
Final thought: there can be and already is lots of great writing on God, ethics, aesthetics (the 'hard' and 'holy' stuff.) Perhaps the only problem is assuming a particular argumentative approach toward these matters. Why should they be approached quasi-scientifically? Why should we focus on whether they are true as opposed to how they are true in context? What about 'Nothing human is alien to me' ? Approaching in this way, the point is not to prove or disprove but to understand so that one's existence is enriched and one's world is widened.
Yes, what are these limits and how do they dictate discourse?
Very good post. I think, the limits of our world limit effective discourse. So, some moderator is required to moderate the crowds. How do you implement that is another question worth pursuing.
Not if they’re explored in the context of a ‘domain of discourse’. The reason they’re ‘inchoate’ is because of the chaotic state of culture.
What do you mean by that?
Can you expand on the "acid of modernity and globalization"? I think this is an assault on liberalism; but, am unsure.
True, that. Good point. I don't believe in liberalism at all, that is without regulation.
Why do we even bother?
What do you mean??
I'm not sure what you're asking. Whenever Mrs un asks me what I'm thinking, I say 'nothing special.'
And then she says 'what's special about it?' , and I say 'that it's me thinking about it.'
Does that help?
I'm asking whether there is any merit to philosophical quietism? Or must we be loud and rambunctious about the issue of God, life, ethics, and so on?
?? There are thousands of years of philosophy "intellectualizing"/analyzing ethical questions. So I'm not sure how we can say that it's not possible.
Quoting Posty McPostface
"There is no useful agreement" (in your opinion--that's always going to be an opinion) is different than "this is not analyzable."
Philosophy is a field in which there is going to be continued disagreement about even the most fundamental claims. Some would even say that looking at philosophy as a field where we should be reaching widespread consensuses is essentially not getting what philosophy is about, because the gist of the discipline is its methodological tools, part of which involves regularly looking for and challenging various assumptions that are made in premises, in ideas of entailment, etc.
Yes, that is true. But, we are in constant disagreement even about the smallest of issues. Isn't that indicative of a flawed methodology?
Quoting Terrapin Station
Then what job does a philosopher have? A questioner of truth?
I don't know. Hence, my question.
I'd say look to the difference between a talk between friends and a kind of evangelism that insists it has THE truth. Some of the best and most deeply joyful conversations involve really connecting with someone on the grand and terrible issues of what life and death are all about. In these conversations we speak for ourselves from our own experiences. We try to meet in the middle (understanding one another) because there is already affection, respect, and curiosity. We are open. We don't just want to send or convert. And while we do hope for some amount of mirroring, we also hope to be surprised and learn.
True wisdom. Thanks!
But, how do you reach Rogerian agreements between such opposing views as supremacism or such matters?
What if philosophy is something like the essence of being human? Or one of the highest modes of human existence? I think it is or at least can be.
So, why so much disagreement about various issues? Is this just moral relativism stated another way?
Basically, yes. It's a critical thinking toolkit. Expecting philosophy to build up some big cache of conclusions that have widespread consensus throughout the field amounts to not getting what philosophy is in my opinion.
Of course, some folks will say that I'm way off base in the above, but that's just the idea, isn't it?
It's the old joke re the "Two Laws of Philosophy:"
(1) For every philosopher, there is an equal and opposite philosopher.
(2) They're both wrong.
I do think there are limits. As I mentioned, we have to start with a minimum of affection, respect, and curiosity. A very strong or open spirit can feel its way into darker positions than most, but that's about it. Ultimately I think life is a mystery. And everything I say I can only say from my own experience, trusting but not quite sure that it will be intelligible or useful for others.
If that's true, then philosophers can agree on certain things. Why the disagreement?
What about sincerity?
Have you ever looked into artificial neural networks? I'll use them as a metaphor. Different 'souls' are trained on different datasets (experiences.) We adapt to the world as it has shown itself to us. But the world shows itself differently to different people. By the time we learn to question what we think, we're already starting from very different perspectives. In a way, the idea that questioning what we think is virtuous is a technology for bringing us together. One understanding of being reasonable would associate it with openness and curiosity.
But philosophy is always (OK, often) rebellious in some sense. It's easier to hide behind a flag or a bumper sticker with a warm mob. What is it that lures or drives some humans to think 'away' from their 'initial' mob or initial community more than others ? Probably lots of things. Some philosophers have said 'irritability.' Others have talked about really facing one's mortality. I think there's a connection to religion, where Truth serves as a substitute for God. A larger more universal (or more noble or more beautiful) and ultimately future community is identified with. 'Some are born posthumously. '
Again, "Of course, some folks will say that I'm way off base in the above, but that's just the idea, isn't it?"
Sure, I think that's in the mix too. Basically the point of a friendship is largely that one can finally be sincere in a world of prudent faking. And by faking, I don't mean lying necessarily. I mean keeping one's counsel, swallowing one's objections for various reasons. A large reason is that they would not be understood in the right spirit, so that the desired relief would not result from the failed attempt at disclosure.
What do you mean by that?
Yes, that's a general idea. But, the truth is such a vague concept. Can we ever do away with it?
The epistemic closure comes to my mind. Can it ever be attained?
For instance, I was raised in a 'red' state with a 'red' perspective on the world. But over the years I moved more and more away from that, which means that I became less and less intelligible to the people I first knew as a child. Now I know mostly 'blue' people. But I still feel a distance from them and a desire to not live in a bubble. I feel drawn to the 'crack' where complexity gets in. There's a self-mutilation in openess and self-criticism, but it's also the source of intense joy, a real sense of transcendence. It's like going beyond the wall to enjoy the open space where one can unfold oneself, nevermind the whitewalkers. And maybe every philosopher (in Nietzsche's sense and mine too really) is a bit of a whitewalker --at the very least a wildling who feels cooped-up in finished systems --and a little grossed out by a room full of people who know that they are right and the others are wrong.
I doubt it, but we don't really need it in its general form. What humans really crave and indeed find at least for stretches is certainty enough about their positions in life. Like trusting a spouse or a friend. Like feeling at home in one's career (until maybe you or it changes.) Or feeling at home in one's fundamental grasp of the world (that things make sense and are justified.) Basically closure is more of a feeling and way of acting than a theoretical entity. Yeah, we can theorize about it in the abstract, but that usually means we already experience it where it counts. That's why we can simply play with concepts, because life isn't currently tearing us to pieces and we aren't suffering real doubt (identity crisis.)
More pieces of wisdom. Thanks, I'll ponder over it.
In the meantime tell me if you agree with Schopenhauer?
About irritability, yes. But I can only speak from experience. This was also written about in Steppenwolf, a great novel. I'd say that there is a certain violence in spirituality. 'Our God is a consuming fire.' Metaphors, passwords, secret handshakes.
Go on...
I hope they are pieces of wisdom. One man's meat is another man's poison. I'm often ambivalent about sharing. In some moods I find a great joy in it. In other moods, I want to get back on the other side of the wall and keep my own counsel. Like Francis Wolcott, 'I don't want you to...have seen me.'
Indeed. Thanks for sharing though. We can never truly know the answers to some things; but, we can try.
Well other philosophers talk about living one's own death. I think of it as the continual incremental death of the small self. Now it's very easy for this all to become evangelic and systematic. That obscene possibility haunts it from its origins. Everything can become cheap.
Cheap in what way? Grows confused.
Yeah, that's a very suggestive line. We might also say that the limits of my experience are the limits of what I can mean --and, more troubling, what I can understand. In my view, we have to be someone to understand them. But the human imagination is powerful. So the right words can allow us to be them sufficiently to have a breakthrough. Hence the massive importance of the poet. And I think the great philosophers are poets. They paint the intellectual version of the spiritual hero. Like, what did Kant love? What was his image of virtue, and how did that affect his image of precritical metaphysics? Did he find that kind of approach to be clever shallowness? I think Wittgenstein at least experienced a sense of clever shallowness and that he was irritable about it, irritable enough to revolutionize philosophy.
The same sentence offers itself both to profound and shallow interpretations. And then people who have had profound experiences can 'forget' them without forgetting the words. So they repeat the same words and yet do not really remember. Or they are seduced into pleasing a crowd, seduced by their success into a kind of dogmatism. I think I see this in certain public intellectuals. Having so many people hang on their every word encourages them to pontificate and make too much of their idiosyncrasies.
Wittgenstein was a sort of mystical poet. Have you read any of his works? Start with the Tractatus, it's pure enjoyment.
I adore Wittgenstein. He's one of my very favorites, and I did have a kind of 'mystical' response to parts of that book. For me the great philosophers are like great music. They enrich existence. But 'enrich' is too tame a word. Great philosophers are like thunderstorms.
:)
I know you are a fan of Wittgenstein. What I mean is at least associated with the later Wittgenstein. In short, people assume that they can do 'math' with individual meanings. Look and see the spaces between the words of this sentence. Those spaces can be misleading. They do not indicate a genuine or conclusive gap between plural meanings. Or not as I see it. The fantasy of being able to do conclusive math with words is one of the driving motives (as I see it) of the analytic or atomic approach. If we can snap truths together with the right bricks (meanings), then we better obsess over these little bricks individually. We assume that we should start with the 'atoms' of meaning to build securely. So we need certain atoms to be especially reliable.
But what if meaning is mostly not like that? Everyone will grant context some importance, but (from my perspective) perhaps not enough. Holism starts with the forest to make sense of the trees. It starts with entire personalities and communities. It starts with the mysterious linguistic know-how that we already have. What's scary about it is that we work from a foundation that we don't understand. If we try to understand it, we rely on it as we try to test or justify it. It's a fundamental possession that we can't get behind. This is humiliating to a certain kind of theological project, which is to say the construction of a system of words that somehow justifies itself and answers all questions beyond reasonable doubt, implicitly obliterating the significance of time.
Another awesome post.
Thanks.