Cultural Relativism: Science, Religion and Truth?
James Frazer, writing in 'The Golden Bough, ' spoke of the succession of ways of viewing truth: magic, religion and science. In the twentieth first century it seems clear that scientists have the strongest claim to truth, although there are many who hold to religious beliefs strongly. It could be argued that religious ways of thinking are redundant, although I would not take such a stark view because I believe that the needs of people cannot be met thoroughly within the domain of science alone.
I am thinking of mythic truths, although I would suggest that for many the word myth implies false fantasies. I embrace the term myth in a wider sense as encompassing story and metaphor. I also embrace the whole sphere of cultural relativism to embrace the anthropological perspectives of the various traditions of mythologies and religions.
The word relativism is one which depicts the many various views, and it has also led onto the idea of moral relativism. The problem which I see with relativism itself is that it can be seen as implying that we all have different perspectives and there can be no way of discerning truth at all. I prefer the idea of pluralism, which suggests competitive rather than necessarily equal truths, because it has less of a reductive slant towards comparisons The underlying question is whether comparisons are all they we can ever achieve within the relativistic argument. Nevertheless, cultural relativism is an important means of analysis.
I am aware that science is a dominant way of seeing and the clash between religion and science is not new at all, going as far back as the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and Roger Bacon.
I would like to point to the following statement by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto (2019), in 'Out of Our Minds: What We Think and How We Came to Think It',
'The idea that science and religion are enemies is false: they concern distinct, if overlapping, spheres of human experiences. But the presumption has proved extremely hard to overcome.'
So, I am asking about the whole question of truth arising from the clash between religion and science and divergent systems of thinking. Is there one which is the ultimate in terms of establishing truth?
I am thinking of mythic truths, although I would suggest that for many the word myth implies false fantasies. I embrace the term myth in a wider sense as encompassing story and metaphor. I also embrace the whole sphere of cultural relativism to embrace the anthropological perspectives of the various traditions of mythologies and religions.
The word relativism is one which depicts the many various views, and it has also led onto the idea of moral relativism. The problem which I see with relativism itself is that it can be seen as implying that we all have different perspectives and there can be no way of discerning truth at all. I prefer the idea of pluralism, which suggests competitive rather than necessarily equal truths, because it has less of a reductive slant towards comparisons The underlying question is whether comparisons are all they we can ever achieve within the relativistic argument. Nevertheless, cultural relativism is an important means of analysis.
I am aware that science is a dominant way of seeing and the clash between religion and science is not new at all, going as far back as the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and Roger Bacon.
I would like to point to the following statement by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto (2019), in 'Out of Our Minds: What We Think and How We Came to Think It',
'The idea that science and religion are enemies is false: they concern distinct, if overlapping, spheres of human experiences. But the presumption has proved extremely hard to overcome.'
So, I am asking about the whole question of truth arising from the clash between religion and science and divergent systems of thinking. Is there one which is the ultimate in terms of establishing truth?
Comments (225)
I'd refer to that quote by Felipe Fernandex-Arnesto: science and religion aren't enemies. One doesn't refute the other, even if some atheist would disagree with my view.
You can think of it from a logical viewpoint. Science tries to be objective whereas religion is inherently subjective. They easily overlap, but are about different things. The insistence of just thinking about the creation stories in religion and them being false to our scientific views doesn't refute in my opinion religions. It isn't as simple as that. We need morals and we cannot deduce those morals from just scientific inquiry.
Truths are truths and are part of a logical system, so I'm a bit confused just what do you mean with a mythic truth. Are you thinking of axioms or postulates?
I do wonder if I am if I am the only person on the forum who has explored the territory between materialist science and other alternatives, as it is so easy to simply log into threads which suit familiar territories and safety.
But, certainly, from my point of view which may be disregarded as complete rubbish by all the experts, there are big, answered debates concerning science and religion, and the areas in between. As it is, it seems that they are dismissed as irrelevant to philosophy, in which the word 'qualia' is deemed almost to god-like status.
I say this, and I do not even consider myself as religious but simply wish to not be bound to certain restrictive terms, wishing for freedom in philosophical adventure and exploration.
Given that scientists have multiple positions on almost every topic, and given that scientists are constantly changing their position on almost every topic, I cannot view them as a source of "truths". This is apart from the real life experience of teachers and professors presenting certain ideas as truths, merely for the convenience of being to apply grades to students.
On the otherworld, some religions do profess to provide paths to truths, though they too daughter from the same ailment as science, that is constantly changing and contradictory truths.
As for myths, they tell us all about something that lies within ourselves. Artifacts from our beginnings. Address these truths. If we can see them, maybe so.
So what is the source of truths? I guess at that center point in each own's heart.
"This above all: to thine own self be true."
Oh, no, you are not alone in the middle range of worldviews. Unfortunately, that middle is a muddle, with no single moderate belief system dominating. Just as political rivals tend to become polarized, rival worldviews tend to cause people to move toward one extreme or the other. Modern Science, as it emerged in the Enlightenment age, sought to distinguish itself from then-current world-dominating belief system of Roman Catholicism, by emphasizing Doubt over Faith, and Practical this-worldly Utility over Postponed other-worldly Salvation. That leaves philosophically-minded folks in the no-man's-land of open-minded skepticism. Which is why my personal worldview of Enformationism, has adopted the BothAnd Principle as a means to having the best of both worldviews : practical & ethical effects ; objective & subjective truths. Unfortunately, maintaining that precarious balance is a high-wire act. :smile:
Enformationism :
[i]* As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
* As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an Aristotelian First Cause is proposed to serve as both the universal Enformer (energy) and the malleable Substance (matter) of the evolving world.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
BothAnd Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Your system of thought, known as enformationism is interesting as a way of trying to overcome the conflict between spiritualism and materialism. I am glad that someone is working on such an outlook and I will read more on the link you provide.
But apart from the idea of providing a system of convergence I think that there is a need for more discussion between those who hold religious perspectives and the various scientific viewpoints.
I do agree that it is not as if all the religious people (many religions in the first place) have a unity of belief and indeed science is a broad field.
You say that the 'source of truths' can be found in the "centre point in each's own heart'. Here, you are suggesting the subjective search for truth and I do agree that we choose our beliefs subjectively. You also capture the way in which the truth is found in the 'heart' which conveys the importance of emotion and this is an important point too because philosophy sometimes focuses on the truth, in the 'head' alone, in the pursuit of rationality.
Also, while you see the questions of truth in an emotional and subjective light, I do believe that the majority of thinkers, religious or scientific, see themselves as striving for objective truth.
Looking for objective truths can be a nice hobby that fills time but is much like a donkey trying to eat the carrot that is in front but always just out of reach. Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus comes to mind. Finding joy in the relentless but unattainable.
We have truths inside of us. They will guide us in our journey through this life and the next.
Science is based on testable theories about observable facts, and on discovering the general principles which govern the behaviour of phenomena. Religions are concerned with ethical principles and discerning and following ethical laws and ultimately with realising a vision of a life beyond the temporal, transient and perishable.
Aquinas himself thought there ought to be no necessary conflict between science and religion. He said ‘The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the unbeleivers if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.’
That said, it is necessary to acknowledge that conflict between religion and science was made abundantly clear in the trial of Galileo. Although the facts of that case are not nearly so clear-cut as many secular critics of the Church claim, it is nevertheless true that the Church did not officially resile Galileo’s condemnation, which arguably should never have been made in the first place, until the early 1990’s.
Religious hostility to the theory of evolution is also a significant social factor especially in the United States. It is one of the primary issues that animates the so-called culture wars, in which conflict between science and religion is writ large.
So it’s simplistic to say that there ought not to be conflict between science and religion. There often is, and problems lie on both sides of the argument.
Yes, I think that there has been historical conflict between the ideas of religion and science and that evolution has been a stumbling block for many. But of course, it does depend on how literally people take the Bible. If the story of Adam and Eve is seen more as a mythic account rather than a factual one it is easier to reconcile the conflict between The Bible and religion.
However, when I spoke of religious belief I was not speaking of Christianity alone. I was thinking of the varieties of belief and if anything the issue of us being aware of all the possibilities before us can make us less common to one. I was brought up as a Catholic and have not completed discarded all these beliefs but I have certainly thought outside of the confines of what I was taught as a child. I have been strongly influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism. So, I could be accused of mixing and matching according to my own preferences.
Perhaps it is hard for many to see any reason to believe in anything beyond the material world in the face of the whole spectrum of science. I have seen foundations for possible belief in more than the material world by the whole area of discussion of God and the new physics.
In particular, I have read 'The Tao of Physics' by Fritjof Capra, but I would imagine that the whole idea of God expressed in this book may be hard for many to equate with the God they have been brought up to believe in, and of course many are not brought up with any specific belief systems at all. I do not even mean that they have been brought up as actual atheists as such, but just that they have not been given a specific worldview at all. They are left to dismiss the whole questions of definite beliefs at all, and in this sense they have all the different views available to them, including the various scientific accounts. And, here it is possible to be blinded by the relativity of all the competing ideas and values.
I just noticed that at the bottom of your post that you asked what I meant by the idea of mythic truths. What I was implying is that certain ideas can be seen as containing meaningful on the level of story or as archetypal. Here, I am adopting the ideas of Carl Jung and the ideas of Joseph Campbell, who both looked to the recurrence of symbolism in everyday life and within religious beliefs.
The problem is that science, though it might be capable of delivering the truth, is incapable of determining what constitutes "truth", or the criteria for truth. So it is by some means other than science that we determine whether what science has given us is truth or not. This is a fact which is simple to apprehend if you respect the fact that science is a method, you might say a system of rules, and it is impossible that by following a set of rules, one might create the rules which are being followed. Therefore we must turn to something other than science to determine the criteria for truth, and provide the guidance for science, to ensure that it delivers truth rather than something else.
Quoting Jack Cummins
To avoid this problem I suggest you look toward mystic principles rather than mythic.
There are many houses. Does this imply that my partner and I live in different houses? You speak of culture. Two people with the same culture will probably have more closely correlated views than two people from conflicting cultures. I am pro-choice. Catholics and Midwesterners generally aren't. On the other hand, my viewpoint also differs from people of the same culture. I have a stronger belief in the importance of personal responsibility than my partner, who is far more sympathetic toward murderers and rapists than I am.
Relativism allows, but does not enforce, different positions on the same thing.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Relativism also allows for unequal truths. Relativism in postmodernism is often accused of levelling the playing field but it doesn't. Nothing is immune from deconstruction: any text has its biases and hidden assumptions. That does not make such flaws equal. One finds far more fault when deconstructing, say, Julie Burchill than one does deconstructing a Nature or Science paper, and the assumptions and biases of the latter are less controversial and easier to discern.
Quoting Jack Cummins
The idea expressed here that religion has its domain of enquiry and science has its own sort of makes the enmity inevitable, especially when one side is expansionist and the other authoritarian. Science inevitably ends up expanding into what religion considers its turf, be it the positions of the planets and the sun, the origin of the Earth and mankind, or moral truths. Of course, not all religions are authoritarian, and not all are equally likely to conflict with science.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I don't think so. Storytelling is extremely better suited to refining our moral truths than any future Grand Theory of Everything. One must choose the right tool for the job. Also, it's all mythos really. We construct narratives to make sense of the world. Science is just a lot more constrained insofar as it has to fit data and make predictions.
If you're truly interested in uncovering knowledge, epistemology might answer your questions.
The saving grace for religion is abstract thinking but we stopped educating for that. I don't think Hebrews understood their stories concretely as Christians do today. Those stories are just stories carried on to get a point across but not to be understood literally. :gasp: An abstract understanding of demons is worries and fears and resentments that trouble us. A literal understanding of demons is superstition and comes into the God of Abraham religion a little late and from the east. Education for technology has favored literal interpretations resulting in Christianity becoming quite a serious problem.
Science may have the strongest claim to truth...but, the scientific worldview also has to integrate into the overall project of humanity, viz, supply stable normative values around which social and cultural projects can be successfully co-ordinated and operationalized. And it is here that the scientific worldview is failing miserably.
We need to keep scientific validity but somehow also restore normative justifications and legitimations.
Here is where the wisdom Jack Cummins demonstrates, comes in to play.
Education for technology is not education for science! The ancients developed a lot of technology but they had no idea why what they knew worked. For whatever reason, the Greeks got a bee in their bonnet and they had to know exactly why is something so. The Greeks were exploring universal truths and developing linear logic and theories. Eastern logic is cyclical, not linear, and leads to mysticism instead of technology. :joke: I think this train of thought leads to insanity but I will attempt to make sense of it.
The eastern ancient civilizations had the technology and perhaps it was the development of mystical thinking that pulled them off course? Like Zorcasterism began as a religion leading to wisdom but got all tangled up with superstition and became self-destructive. I think this is common when the thoughts of great thinkers become familiar to the masses because the masses become believers rather than thinkers. The Greeks for undetermined reasons took a different path. They rejected superstition and looked for natural causes. That is the path to science.
The important thing to understand is morality is a matter of cause and effect. If something is destructive it is immoral. We can use science to know cause and effect but it is philosophy and democracy that gives us a path to a consensus on the best reasoning. The miracle of democracy should not be overlooked!!! Democracy and liberty are dependent on education- everyone thinking things through and therefore rule by reason, rather than mysticism and authority over the people. :joke: :love: :chin: Yeap, I have gone over the edge. I hope someone can make sense of what I have said. :worry:
Unfortunately, education can also be co-opted and then it becomes propaganda. Are you confident that the education to received has not been coopted? Is this the place to find truths?
I love Jack's threads! Not only does he inspire thinking, but the forum members participate so well. And Kenosha, your explanation of the need for different tools is perfect.
Yes, storytelling is essential to civilizations! Joseph Campbell explained the importance of mythology is to transition the young into the kind of adults favored by the social group.
For nearly two hundred years the US used education to transmit a culture essential to liberty and democracy, but stopped doing that in 1958 and now we are in a serious mess! We are at each other's throats and I am not sure our democracy is going to survive this.
Why did we stop transmitting a culture essential to liberty? Well, like Homer's stories of gods, the Greek and US cultures depended on mythology. For national defense reasons we stopped transmitting our culture and began preparing the young for a technological society with unknown values. The mythology had to go because, well, really did Washington really cut down the cherry tree, and did Lincoln walk a mile to return to a penny to someone? Technology is about the right or wrong way to do something, the right or wrong answers and it can not tolerate those silly stories. A technological society is a military-industrial complex, not exactly a liberal democracy that can tolerate what someone else believes. Oh if someone wants to be a complete flake, that is the person's choice. Marginalize that person, let him/her have freedom, but keep him/her out of the regime.
When the US destroyed its national heroes, it destroyed its culture. This is not just a change in education and how people learn to think, but it is an important change in bureaucratic power over the people as well. Instead of prepared our young for independent thinking, and transitioning them to adults, the young have been prepared for groupthink, and instead of being independent thinkers trusting in their own maturing authority, they seek leaders and find them in social media, and boy or boy are we in a mess!
It is a myth that our democracy comes out of Christianity. It does not! The thinking essential to our liberty and democracy came out of Athens and was further developed in Roman, but Athens and Roman both became ensnared in military might and their cultures died. The old books that no one reads, can hold the memory but they can not manifest liberty and democracy. God's love might be nice, but what we need is an appreciation of scientific truth and tolerance of each other. We need the Spirit of America. We need our mythology. Christianity is no better for democracy than Islam is and we should not be going to town with our rifles ready to shoot down those who oppose us because this is not God's battle, it is a human disaster that needs to be corrected with education that transmits the culture essential to liberty and democracy.
:scream: That is what happened! The 1958 National Defense Education Act, changed the purpose of education and those who are in control of it. Now our republic is as perverted as the republic of Germany that lead to Hitler and this is so because the US adopted the German model of bureaucracy that shifts power and authority away from the individual to the state, and we adopted the German model of education that goes with the bureaucratic change. If the population were aware of what happened and why it happened and how it happened, there is a chance we could save our democracy and make it even better than it was. Only when our democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended, and that is NOT education for a technology society with unknown values!
PS to clarify, the Act replaced our liberal education (starting with the first day of school) with education for technology for industrial and military purpose. As military leaders took over Rome, so have they taken over the US, and even if we threw every weapon in the ocean we would still be an industrial-military complex, not the democracy with liberty we defended in two world wars.
t.
Thanks for all the comments,
Jack
I agree. And the "truth" of scientific materialism propaganda is a prime example. Humans are no more than machines and are expendable. Thankfully, there is resistance to this way of viewing life, mostly coming from religious quarters since both are fighting for the same turf.
There won't be a detente between Science's Materialists and Religion's Spiritualists until they find some kind of common ground. For me, that common denominator is Generic (universal) Information. In the form of invisible causal Energy, Information -- or what I call EnFormAction -- serves the same role as Spirit in ancient worldviews.
For example, Chinese "Chi" and Indian "Prana" were imagined as analogous to spiritual energies that caused various changes in bodies, including Life itself. In the Frankenstein novel, electrical energy was the cause of re-vivifying the dead body of the monster. Also, in it's visible tangible form of Matter, Energy is converted into the materials that scientists study empirically. Moreover, what we call "Mind", is well-known as the processing of Information, which is both the data being acted upon, and the causal force behind of the process of Thinking or Minding.
At the same time, Information has the potential to convert its Energy into Matter (E=MC^2). And cutting-edge physics has done it both ways. See Scientific American article below.
Therefore, in the Enformationism worldview, Generic Information bridges the gap between Physics & Metaphysics, between Matter & Mind, between Science & Religion. But, until a significant percentage of the world population accepts that underlying commonality, we will continue to talk past each other in our ecumenical efforts. :smile:
Chi : (Qi or Ki) is the energy of life itself, a balance of Yin and Yang, positive and negative, electromagnetic energy which flows through everything in creation. So Chi can possibly be described as an electromagnetic phenomenon, as a form of light energy, as a form of bio-electromagnetic energy or electricity.
Consciousness as a Physical Process Caused by the Organization of Energy in the Brain :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225786/
What is EnFormAction? : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind : Matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real. This abstract notion, called information realism . . . .
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/
I agree. My point is that having those creation stories or other myths doesn't make religion totally false as it gives us moral rules how to behave. What I think that religion still has it's positive aspects too, that's all.
I don't think religion is a root of evil and war. You could say the similar thing about all successful political ideologies, that they have gotten us war and misery. Yet ideologies have given us also good.
Hey you’re speaking my language. I read that in my twenties and it had a huge influence. At the time I was enrolled in Comparative Religion in which I did an Honors degree (on the American Transcendentalists.)
Quoting Jack Cummins
I am in total agreement. Around the time I read that book, I wrote an essay along the lines that 'God is not God'. It was an argument that 'God' is often a kind of social construct or 'consensus reality' which people believe in because it's been drilled into them or because those around them do. About this time I discovered the God of the mystical path of negation, which is a completely different kind of understanding. I've been reading about that ever since.
You say, 'we must turn to something other than science to determine the criteria for truth,' and I do believe that on a daily basis most people search beyond the findings of science, which are just the foundations. And here, is where I would say that relativity comes in because everyone's search is unique.
The reason I use the word 'myth' is based on the idea of the collective unconscious, as stressed by Jung, and he said that, 'There is nothing mystical about the collective unconscious.' Of course, I realise that many people reject the idea of the collective unconscious and many find Jung's writings to be a bit mystical.
Personally, confronted by all the ambiguities of religion and science I have found his writings to be a helpful way of untangling knots in my own thinking. But I realise that each person approaches the matter of truth in their own individual way.
'it's all mythos really. We construct narratives to make sense of the world. Science is just a lot more constrained in so far as it has to fit data and make restrictions.'
Personally, I agree with you although I think that many of a scientific persuasion would like to claim that there path is the most accurate and valid.
I take your point that, 'If you're interested in uncovering knowledge epistemology might answer your question.' I would not wish to ignore epistemology. I do believe that the majority of people, on some level, ask how can I know. But, also I do believe that cultural differences raise questions about truth as well.
The anthropological study of cross-cultural categorical is an important marker. In, 'Magic, science, religion, and the scope of rationality', Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah(1990) suggest that the,
'translation of cultures and their comparative study raises not only the question of the mentality of us and other peoples, but also ultimately the issue of "rationality" itself, and the limits of western "scientism" as a paradigm.'
I would agree with them too. I have come across people who treat scientific theory as if it had come via divine revelation, but I think most of us would agree that theory is a refinement of representation for what science might feasibly represent, not perfect, but a good enough and improving story to treat as if it were the case... for now.
The kinds of narrative that fiction, for instance, is good at is not a tractable scientific problem. You can't arrive at whatever truth is in Dostoevsky's The Idiot by solving the wave equation or dissecting Dostoevsky. Even a deconstruction would likely be intractable, although would provide some insight.
When I was writing my first paper on quantum transport theory as a PhD student, my professor was always on about 'the story'. "What is the story we're telling here?" "This interesting nugget does not contribute to the story." Exactly the same sort of criticism you would get on a piece of fiction. (I used to be a member of Critique Circle too.) At first I took this as an issue of communication, but later realised that this is fundamentally what theorists are doing: creating and refining narratives that are constrained by data points and the necessity of being predictive and novel.
That doesn't belittle it in any way. Shakespeare was no less a genius than Newton. They just used the tools they had the best they could in the kinds of narrative-building that suited them. And there's no barrier to a story being true, or close enough to the truth to be useful.
I certainly agree that while, Science may have the strongest claim to truth' the questions of philosophy cannot be grasped by science alone. But I think that philosophy is in danger of going too far towards reductive materialism and that in doing so it will stray away from the task of enabling people to think critically, and become too obscure.
I am glad that you have joined in the debate and I like your point about determining creation stories as being problematic, because in spite of science many people in society do still take them literally.
I am also pleased that you read the writings of Joseph Campbell as I think his analysis of the symbolic dimensions of life are so valuable.
I do agree that there is no absolute one truth waiting to be found. As a teenager I think I would have liked to find a magic answer waiting to be found but, really, it would probably make life very dull.
The point was, that before we can judge a particular piece of work which is presented to us as science, as to whether it gives us truth or not, we need some idea as to what constitutes truth. It's probably the case that every person has one's own distinct way of judging that matter, implying relativism in truth. But then you posit a "collective unconscious". Isn't this posit an attempt to nullify that relativism?
Quoting Jack Cummins
Approaching this supposed collective unconscious is a difficult task, because it is conceptual, and we can flip it around to approach from one side or the inverse, finding its weakness which allows one to penetrate, annihilate and reject. The concept appears first as a myth, but that is how it appears to the individual conscious mind with an inclination toward a relativist truth. Mysticism provides us with principles whereby we can suspend the inclination of the conscious individual to judge truth or falsity in a relativist way, providing an appropriate approach to this concept. But this means that the concept is mystical because it is through a mystical approach that it makes sense. Other approaches will render the concept as a myth. And that is an example of how we might bring a myth away from the judgement of "falsity", which one might be inclined to impose, by recognizing that such a judgement is based in the relative perspective of the individual.
The articles you linked me into about Joseph Campbell are interesting, and I am sure he has his limits but I think it is going too far to say that he is for children and 'that he is a practice rung on a practice ladder.' I am wondering which writers you would place higher up the ladder?
I think that his ideas do work most strongly in understanding personal psychology in literary narratives. However, our lives are composed of story and stories within stories so in that sense are relevant for understanding truth.
I will reply to the comment you made on truth later on, after I have replied to the one on the subject by Undercover Metaphysician. I have really raised the whole question of what is truth in my thread, as well as the debate on religion vs truth, and cultural relativism but perhaps, stripping back the surfaces, perhaps the main one is what is truth?
I perfer philosophy to religion. I like the Greek approach to achieving human excellence and I think what Confucius says about achieving human excellence has value. I have also enjoyed the Hindu explanation. But I do not like the Biblical focus on sin and evil, demons, and Satan. With Christianity, one can never know if it is Satan causing a problem or God punishing us that is the problem, rather than it all being a matter of cause and effect and the consequence of what we think, say, and do.
That said, the Bible does have wisdom and analogies that explain things in a poetic way, better than can be explained in factual statements. I want to stress the important difference between interpreting the Bible literally or abstractly. A literal interpretation of the Bible is problematic.
Do you mean research like this?
Quoting Rafi Letzter
and this...
Quoting Connor Duke
Sure, why not?
Thought affects matter and matter affects thought every moment. The event is undeniable. Just because we can't explain is itself no reason to doubt. Since every known force exhibits some form of conservation and reciprocality, thought can only be affected by matter to the exact extent that it affects matter. You get nothing for free. Not even freedom.
An anthropologist Edward T. Hall wrote of cultural consciousness and unconsciousness. He said, in our culture thinking about cannibalism is taboo and such thoughts are relegated to our subconscious. Some forums do not tolerate mysticism and I think we know there is more but we can not talk about it in some groups.
I have no love for either institutionalized form of thinking, preferring to think for myself as to my own spiritual/philosophical approach to life. However, as institutions, both fighting over the same turf, organized religion does create a formidable opponent for science, both providing checks on the other. Science may claim the education institutions but religion has the churches, both providing pulpits for their own brand of thinking.
I have to admit that I am struggling a bit in coming up with a response to your comment because I can see the validity of what you are saying. I can see that the idea of a collective unconscious is one which can be disputed.I don't think that the idea does in itself challenge relativism outrightly. That is because it is a source of symbolism and not necessarily a source of knowledge, but this is complicated.
The reason I am struggling with my answer is that I am aware it opens up such enormous areas of debate around the whole question of truth. The problem I see with the idea of the mystic quest is that to some extent it pushes aside philosophy and the rational search for answers, but of course myth goes into the realm of symbolism. I guess that is why many philosophers are inclined to avoid mythology and mysticism. But I am inclined to think that the more people search for solid foundations, especially in physics, the less certain everything is becoming.
So, please accept my remark as tentative and feel free to get back to me because it is an area for discussion. Also, perhaps others will join in because I am really just opening up areas for debate.
I think that the main point you thought that it was worth me reflecting upon was the idea that, 'Every truth, in so far as it is true, is an absolute truth.' I guess that this makes sense in terms of how we all have our own perspective and each one's view at any given time is an absolute in the sense that it is the best that can be achieved. I think that reason I have always been uncertain is that I have always felt confronted by clashing truths.
I read an awful lot, which may be why that happens. Even as an adolescent, I spent loads of time in libraries, and many might have thought I was busy at my GCSE and A level studies, but I was reading all sorts of diverse topics and exposed my mind to all colliding perspectives. Also, I had a physics teacher who said that whatever else, he could say that he had looked at everything from all possible angles. I decided I wished to do that too.
Earlier today, I looked back and saw that someone fairly recently started a thread on the topic of whether there is any objective truth and I had never even logged into it. That was probably because on a subconscious level I am not convinced of any objective truth as such. That is why I raise the issue of cultural relativism. But, perhaps I should not keep looking too hard, but I do like to do my best to explore the different avenues of thought, ranging from the religious to the scientific, in order to develop the clearest thinking that I can.
That does not make sense to me. :chin: It seems to me thought is affected by thought?
I have been thinking about this thread and the notion of nonmaterial reality. Thoughts are not material reality. Feelings are not material reality. Our spirit is a matter of how we feel and it is not material reality but strongly affects us.
Let's consider the distinction proposed by between cultural consciousness and cultural unconsciousness. There is much that we learn, in institutions like schools for example, which is culturally specific. This means that other cultures might not learn the same thing. Now we tend to associate "correct", "right", and "good", with what is proper to one's own specific culture, and this would be the person's cultural consciousness, what one's culture has given to one's conscious mind. Some will even argue that "truth" is given to the individual in this way, through teaching. But this gives us a relativism, because what is correct in one culture might be incorrect in another.
If we turn to the unconscious, we look toward a deeper level, more like instinct and intuition, and we get into the effects of genetics, and the force of hereditary attitudes. Here, in this instinctual, intuitive level, the unconscious, we might find some consistency between the various cultures. So in this way we might get beyond the relativism inherent in culture consciousness, toward a more pure truth. But do you see that it requires rejecting all the things brought to you through your culture and taught to you as correct, right, good, and even true? You might call it a mysticism, you might call it a skepticism, but it is necessary to reject all those things taught to your conscious mind, in order to avoid the relativism of distinct cultures, and start from the unconscious level, to proceed toward a truth based in the unconscious collective, what is common to us all.
Human beings are thought wrapped up in a meat blanket. Thought and matter are interacting. I think, I move matter around. It's trivially evident.
I believe that what you are saying on the idea of the unconscious on a collective basis is consistent with Jung's own thinking on the matter.
In speaking of intuition he said that, 'Mystical experience is experiences of the archetypes.' However, there are ambiguities in his thinking, and part of this may be due to the way he divides experience into four categories: bodily sensations, rational thinking, emotions and, intuition. He believes that these are balanced different from person to person, with most people having one function which is distinctly inferior.
Moving away from Jung to the idea of intuitive knowledge, we can note that some philosophers have, such as Leibniz and Descartes have believed that we have certain ideas which are innate. So, these would override relativism.
If this were me, I'd eat myself. Then where would I be?
Quoting Jack Cummins
The problem with this approach is that we have only the consciously learned thought habits by which we can attempt to apprehend the unconscious. The conscious are add-ons, like the branches, or leaves of the tree, while the unconscious is the base, the roots. and trunk. If we turn around with the conscious, to face the unconscious, we have to be prepared to allow for a true flow of activity, from the base upward. We tend to think that the conscious mind controls the body through intentional acts, because this is the approach from the conscious mind, and this would be like the leaves thinking that they had control over the tree because they collect the sunlight. But this is to neglect the flow of power which is coming from the base, the unconscious, and to be able to apprehend it we must be willing to turn things around in our perspective.
Once we allow the conscious mind to submit in this way, we have no more intelligible principles by which to understand the flow from the unconscious, because these are the consciously developed principles which we must release. So the mystic might say that once we have successfully navigated this reversal, we learn to respect this true source of power, our endeavour is finished. However, the philosopher, as described by Plato's cave allegory is inspired to turn back around again, and proceed back to the culturally inspired conscious principles and reeducate them in relation to what has been learned from a glimpse at the true base.
Quoting Jack Cummins
We have to be careful how we use "intuition", and "intuitive knowledge", because different philosophers have a different place for these terms. Aristotle describe intuitive knowledge as the highest form of knowledge. Following Plato's epistemic divisions, described at the cave allegory, Aristotle reworked the divisions, in his Nichomachean Ethics, to name the principal epistemic division as that between practical and theoretical knowledge. Within each of these divisions there is a layering, or hierarchy, each culminating with the highest form being intuition. We can see intuition in the practical sense, as the person who is extremely capable of discerning and factoring in all the variables before making a judgement for action. In the theoretical sense, we see intuition in the way that one judges theoretical principles to be compiled in the composition of hypothesis. You'll see that the two types of intuition are very similar, but are in a way inversions of each other. Practical intuition refers to how we apply theory toward action, and theoretical intuition refers to how we apply what has been learned from practice, toward theory.
I believe the next philosopher to significantly use the term "intuition" is Kant. You'll see that Kant uses it in a completely different way, which starts the trend in modern philosophy, to equate intuition with instinct, or an innate trend. For Kant intuition is something necessary for knowledge, and therefore somewhat prior to as a necessary condition for, but not actually a form of, knowledge. But we have to be careful with Kant's usage because this is how Kant puts the noumena out of reach of knowledge, by designating intuitions as a medium between the thing itself, and knowledge of the thing. It is the intuitions which are responsible for the sense appearances within the mind, and it is implied that the conscious mind has no control over the influence of intuitions in its fabrication of knowledge. When Aristotle broached the question of whether intuitive knowledge was innate or learned, he decided that it must be a combination of both. Relative to my description above, this allows that the conscious thinking mind, still has some sway over the power coming from the unconscious base, so that the conscious mind might influence one's intuitions. I believe it is necessary to maintain this aspect in the model of intuitive knowledge to account for the means by which the cultural consciousness gains control over the intuitive. That is where we find ourselves within society, our cultural training is in fact an exercise of conscious control over our innate and instinctual tendency, the intuitions. That is how relativism takes hold, and it is why the Kantian model cannot be accurate.
We are spiritual beings having a human experience?
We are what we eat. This morning a listened to a lecture about ancient Greeks and the importance of sacrificing bulls. It seems back in the day everyone sacrificed bulls and the rationale was the meat of the animal carried its characteristics and we can gain those characteristics by eating the meat. We all want to be strong as a bull right? However, we can carry this thinking through to cannibalism and eat our dead relatives or our enemies depending on how we think this through.
However, in modern societies, you should not be thinking of this at all. :lol: I was once in a less sophisticated forum for a very short time because I mentioned cannibalism and there was an instant
and unquestioned rejection of the person who would do such an awful thing. That was kind of like hitting a hornets' nest with a stick. But we can see here a philosophical question of what substance carries the essence of our being? Is it carried in our meat? In our brain? In something else?
I think genetically transferred knowledge plays a role in intuition.
The PBS show "Finding Your Roots" does genetic studies and sometimes finds the person who is the subject of the show is like a previous relative. The inclination to write or to be a social reformer or play the piano seems to be passed on genetically.
I believe years of study or contemplation can also lead to intuition. We are not going to think like Einstein without doing the homework, but if we do the homework and the contemplation, one day, the answer to our question will pop into our consciousness. This is likely to happen in a dream when our conscious, controlling mind is not in control.
I especially like your explanation of culture and conscious and unconscious thinking and nurturing our ability to think outside of the box. I love Jose Arguelles's explanation of "The Mayan Factor" but also find it incomprehensible because that culture is totally foreign to me. I can not really think the thoughts of which he speaks. I am aware that my present cultural notions prevent me from thinking differently. But I am open-minded enough to do better the folks in science forms who are so rigidly culturally controlled they can not think outside the box and can be hostile in defending what they think they know.
That moves me to what you said and our present cultural problems with change and political fighting and racism that leads to killing or religious fanaticism that can also lead to killing. We can be so trapped in our beliefs that we slaves to them. This can be a good thing or a really awful thing.
Still chewing on what you said and our notion of reality. :grin: A trinity? Mind, body, life?
"Let us, for a moment, consider a scenario. Let us assume the galaxy to be an immense organism possessing order and consciousness of a magnitude transcending the threshold of the human imagination. Like a faint body, it consists of a complex of member star systems each coordinated by the galactic core, Hunab Ku. Cycling energy/information in clockwise and counter-clockwise directions simultaneously, the dense pulsing galactic heart emits a continuous series of signals, called by ourselves radio emissions. In actuality these radio emissions correspond to a matrix of resonance- a vast galactic field of intelligent energy whose primary on-off pulsation provides the basis for four universal wave functions; a transmitting or informational function; a radiative, or electromagnetic function; an attractive or gravitational function, and a receptive or psychoactive function." "The Mayan Factor"
Now, what if the Bible described God in those terms?
Well, our "notion of reality" isn't just an intellectual one, is it? There is an implied belief and value system behind every significant action that we do. That's why playing intellectual games seems to me particularly fatuous. What could be more important or more inclusive than our notion of reality? Not everyone has a theory of reality, but everyone enacts some core beliefs about the nature of reality when they act purposefully. Which is why pragmatics makes so much sense.
The effort to discover truth can never be silly and pointless. It is the purpose of birds to fly, horses to run, and man to think.
God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. "The Phenomenon of Man" Teilhard de Chardin
:grin:
That may be true. But what qualifies one persons' actions as "an effort to discover truth" and another persons' actions as something other than that? Just saying "this is an effort to discover truth" isn't sufficient. If it is a genuine effort to discover truth, then if fulfills some standards of rational discourse or deliberation. Habermas cites the condition of being open to persuasion by good arguments, for example.
Our environment is fundamental to what we think. I am working with Joseph Campbell here. Around the world, snakes are part of people's myths. However, there is an island without snakes and the eel has to take the place of snakes.
The notion of demons comes from the east where mirages are common and around the time of Jesus this eastern understanding of demons and good and evil is popular in Rome and becomes part of Christian consciousness.
From the home of Mongols, the Mongolian Plateau, life is harsh and it is not a good place for gardening so life is wrapped around hunting and when Genghis Khan leaves the Mongolian Plateau he does not have a consciousness of agriculture. He destroys cities and kills everyone, so the land returns to nature and is good for gracing horses. Then a man in China who writes joins Genghis Khan and writes his history. The man from China has an agrarian consciousness and teaches Genghis Khan to harvest the cities instead of destroying them.
As Genghis Khan dominated wherever he went, he thought the notion of a god who cares about people was ridiculous. He had a notion of a sky god but as he saw the sky god it just assume kill pathetic humans as to tolerate their existence. Clearly, if we survived or not it was a matter of our will and skill, not the will of a god who didn't care about humans any more than the gods of Olympus did. It was the goddess of grain who the Greeks depended on because she made the grains grow. It took a while to invent a story of a male god creating humans, and that story seems to have begun with Sumerians and a story of a goddess creating humans of mud to help the river stay in its banks, and not flood and kill the goddess's plants.
Joseph would say we think the same when our environment is the same and it is interesting to me how the fearsome god of the Bible who ruled during the middle ages, became the loving and forgiving God we have today. Modern man, with a full belly, are so sure they have the right Christian thinking and they seem to think the way they understand God is the way Christians have always understood God.
So, you have literal snakes in your life? I only have symbolic ones, and I live in an overcrowded area of South London. It is so busy in Tooting that you get pushed and shoved walking down the streets.
I am sure that our environment affects our thinking, and this goes back to the whole nature and nurture debate. I did not grow up in London though. I was in Bedford, the land of John Bunyan's 'Pilgrim's Progress', so perhaps that is how I began embarking on my own philosophy pilgrimage.
I am pleased that many people are engaging in the thread because I intended it to be a debate rather than one with me dominating it. I tired myself out writing responses to comments, but I hope to write something new in it tomorrow, providing that too many snakes do not manifest themselves in my life before then.
Excellent, the condition of being open to persuasion! This begins with knowing how much we do not know and never being absolutely sure of ourselves. Wisdom begins with "I don't know". Because of education for technology, as Zeus feared, we have become technologically smart, but we no longer turn to the gods and we have lost our wisdom.
My biggest problem with religion is people believing they can know God's truth and will. This problem is made worse by replacing liberal education with education for technology and that brings us to a president like Hitler and reactionary politics that have destroyed "being open to persuasion". This will destroy our democracy if the problem is not corrected before those of us who remember our democracy in a different time, have all died, and no one is left with the memory of our past democracy manifested through liberal education and when congress was much more open to persuasion.
Love :heart: , it is not my truth versus your truth. Democracy is an imitation of the gods who argued until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. Democracy is rule by reason, not authority over the people. Democracy is not control by the people who know God's truth and will. :grimace: Like the gods it is for us to reason until we have a consensus on the best reasoning, and it is our duty to speak up when we disagree with that reasoning and try to persuade others to accept our better reasoning. That is why democracy is an ongoing process, not a set of laws written by a God, and then rule by the leaders God gives us with all that there is for us to do, is to obey.
:grimace: Christianity and the Military Industrial Complex go well together, and we defended our democracy against that in two world wars, and then imitated our enemy if every significant way. Sorry for ranting but we are should not be competing against each other like Jews, Muslims, and Christians, Catholics or Protestants, atheists and Christians in a war against each other to determine truth. We discover truth by working together. :heart: :flower:
Since the theory of Collective Unconscious is vaguely defined, and not amenable to scientific verification, it serves mainly as a cautionary "myth" about human reason. I interpret the CU, not as a mystical Akashic Record out there in the ether, but as simply our genetic & memetic inheritance for certain knee-jerk attitudes and aversions -- such as innate fear of heights & snakes, or implicit racism & tribalism -- that are automatic, and by-pass our mirror of self-awareness.
Collective Unconsciousness : Collective unconscious, term introduced by psychiatrist Carl Jung to represent a form of the unconscious (that part of the mind containing memories and impulses of which the individual is not aware) common to mankind as a whole and originating in the inherited structure of the brain.
https://www.britannica.com/science/collective-unconscious
Akashic Record : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records
Implicit Racism : https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/implicit-racism
Every day I come to this forum, I leave feeling like my brain is overloaded and about to shut down. If I have time, I take a nap when I leave because the mental work consumes so much of my energy, and I am very thankful I am not distracted by child care or a job. This is what gets me out of bed in the morning and puts a smile on my face and love in my heart. The people who post here are special people and you all give me hope. :heart: :flower:
Yes, it is hard to get carried away on this philosophy forum. I probably say more about my personal life than many others, and after all, it is about philosophy.
It can be very addictive as well. I hear beeps on my phone in the night and sometimes get up to read comments coming through, because of course people are writing in different time zones. But, on some nights I have been awake reading comments and tired in the day. Saying that, I think that it is fantastic that we are able to communicate philosophy ideas with people from across the world. It allows for such diversity of discussion, because I am sure that we all have such different lives.
I have just read your post and find it very interesting. I still had not responded to your second comment on the post because there have been a lot and I got a bit overwhelmed.
But I was planning to do a bit more writing on the thread tomorrow and your latest post here will be a useful stimulus for me to reflect upon.
It sounds as though you would really enjoy Habermas' book Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of Law and Democracy. it aligns completely with these views.
I view the recurrent "clashes" between Religion and Science as an example of Hegel's Historical Dialectic. It's how Evolution works : ups & downs, but gradual progress. The Dialectic is a Heuristic searching process, perhaps working its way toward ultimate Truth. The key to Cultural progress is to learn from the past, but plan for the future. :smile:
Hegel : The notion that history conforms to a “dialectical” pattern, according to which contradictions generated at one level are overcome or transcended at the next,
Galileo : "The intention of [the Bible] is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go."
Teilhard deChardin : The Omega Point is the subject of a belief that everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of unification.
Stephen Jay Gould : Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) is a philosophical world view that places religion and science in separate domains of questioning
Note -- Unfortunately, Gould's plea for mutual respect for separate domains of authority was well-intended, but impractical. Realistically, Science and Religion do indeed overlap in some areas. That's where the clashes occur, in which dominance may change hands. Yet, that's also how history, and human culture, progresses, in a back & forth ratcheting action, but generally upward in both technical knowledge and in collective morality.
I was just thinking about what you were saying about the collective unconscious , and I agree that it can be regarded as mythic rather than like some mystical entity. But in a sense, it seems wierd that people often level this criticism at the idea of the collective unconscious, because all theoretical structures are models really. The idea of the collective unconscious should not be seen as some kind of supernatural category.
Surely, no one theory can capture reality completely, but this would apply to religious and scientific viewpoints too. Perhaps all pictures of truth are partial and the problem is like trying to grasp for, 'The Whole of the Moon' as in The Waterboys' song.
Interesting fact: there's a Buddhist concept called the ?layavijñ?na which is translated as 'storehouse consciousness. The '?laya' is the same word as in Him?laya, meaning 'abode' (Him?laya) means 'abode of the Gods'. There have been comparisons between Jung's collective unconscious and the Buddhist ?layavijñ?na, although there are obviously many differences due to the cultural context.
I think naturally such ideas are mystical rather than scientific, in that they are not amenable to scientific method. I myself don't think that adds up to much but on this board it means a lot.
It's interesting really because I think that Jung's ideas are very ambiguous allowing for differing interpretations. My own taking has been influenced by the writings of Anthony Steven's who chose to see his perspective as seeing archetypes as patterns embedded in nature. But of course this is just one way of thinking about it all and I have read a book called, 'Jung the Mystic' by Gary Lachman. Also, I have an unread book on my shelves, called, 'Jung's Psychology and Tibetan Buddhism: Western and Eastern Paths to the Heart,' by Radmila Moacanin. Perhaps I should read it shortly.
I suppose that Jung is one of the writers on the edge, in between religion and science. I do think that there is this whole area as well as those who are on the sometimes aggressive battle between the two possible but not necessarily opposed ways of viewing truth and reality.
I am aware that there are some extremely religious people (mainly Christians) and some people who take a materialist reductionist approach. So far, the whole issue of the 'mystical' has been thrown up by the debates, but not between the most extremes of belief. I have to admit that it had occurred to me that the extremes could have been part of the debate, but the whole notion of 'cultural relativism,' may have led the discussion more into the middle area and this is probably where I have been hovering. I have to admit that I have probably chosen to think away from the 'mystical' because I have done academic studies in psychology and mental health care. But I have read a lot of esoteric philosophy at times as well.
If you read his autobiography Memories Dreams and Reflections, he wrote of the legend that he is the illegitimate grandson of Goethe, due to a dalliance between Goethe and an actress. It was never able to be confirmed but perhaps that makes the story even more evocative. Jung seemed to enjoy the fact that it *might* have been true. And in any case, I think there’s a lot of common ground between the two.
I see Jung as very much in the light of the broader gnostic tradition. (Coming to think of it, you probably are also. I have several of Lachman’s books - the one on Jung I liked.)
Again, the ‘divorce of faith and reason’ is very much a product of the intellectual history of the West. At times past, I wondered whether this might be related to the suppression of Gnosticism in early Christian history. (That has to be qualified by saying there was no one particular gnostic school or sect, instead Gnosticism was a broad tendency within early Christianity with many different manifestations, not of all of them healthy.) But I formed the view that there is a kind of experiential spirituality associated with Gnosticism, which, I think, was suppressed by the ecclesiastical mainstream, because it’s naturally more difficult to institutionalise and control. Believers are much easier to manage.
As you might know, there was a large cache of gnostic literature discovered in Egypt in the 1970’s which came to be known as the Nag Hammadi codex. It contained many previously-lost gnostic scriptures and commentaries. You will find an index of many books on it here. Elaine Pagels is a standout, although April DeConick’s books, which I’ve only recently learned of, also look interesting.
In any case, the exclusive emphasis in Western ecclesiastical religion was on belief, ‘believe and be saved’, at the expense of gnostic insight, ‘you will know the truth and the truth will set you free’. Defence of orthodoxy against heresy was a massive preoccupation for centuries. And ‘orthodoxy’ means ‘right belief’ or ‘right worship’. That is one of the underlying motivations for the rise of a purely secular philosophy. The Royal Society, for example, the first scientific society, explicitly declared the metaphysical philosophy of the priests off limits. Likewise many of the ideas associated with scholastic philosophy, which included a fair amount of Aristotelian philosophy, was more or less cordoned off after the Enlightenment.
So I think, understanding the cultural and historical dynamics is a big part of it. Actually Gnomon touched on that above. But this drives a lot of the responses, one way or another, and often for reasons that aren’t fully articulated or even conscious.
Science has it's limitations and so nobody can discount the supernatural. However, since the scientific method is an actual method that's based on testing, observation, standardization, then it is superior because anyone can repeat or follow the same methods and arrive at the same conclusions.
This cannot be done with the supernatural. That's why there are countless variations in religion, giving birth to millions of deities, each with their own special rules and principles, allowing for countless more interpretations and reinterpretations.
Therefore, any object/phenomenon/concept can only be proven to be real or true based on the scientific method.
That's not to say that unprovable things aren't true but rather that they shouldn't be considered as completely true. They are simply unknown or unverified.
Well, except for the replication crisis.
There's also the fact that within philosophical and spiritual traditions, there's both peer validation and recognition of the student's understanding by experts (i.e. spiritual masters). In fact, arguably, this is where scientific method originated.
Yes of course, nothing is perfect but as a method, it's the best we have.
Quoting Wayfarer
I can see where and how philosophical concepts can be peer reviewed and validated - much like how mathematical formulas/solutions are validated and reviewed. Phrases are reduced to near-algebraic terms if x = y, and y = z, then z = x kinda thing.
But can the same be done to religious experience? Probably not.
You know this already, right? Presumably from long experience in monasteries, viharas, ashrams?
That's the thing. Anyone can go to a lab to test or see an experiment - or even do the test themselves if they have the right tools. But no matter how many times you go to a church, monastery etc... you'll probably have a slightly (added: or vastly) different experience as everyone else.
I don't think that you have to go to church to have significant experiences because people can have peak experiences in all kinds of places. But, of course, we are talking about inner experiences. We could wonder whether the whole world of subjectivity and that is where relativity comes in because, ultimately, no one can claim that their experience of the 'truth' is the superior one.
I agree that experience is largely subjective when it comes to humans since we all experience, process and convey things in a way that's specific for each person. But, that's where the scientific method comes in with things like tools and procedures - not perfect maybe but still preferable.
Just finished Cassirer's Essay on Man, which is...a survey of culture from the perspectives of myth, religion, language, art, history, and science. So more or less in line with your topic. His conclusion:
Human culture taken as a whole may be described as the process of man’s progressive self-liberation. Language art, religion, science, are various phases in this process. In all of them man discovers and proves a new power – the power to build up a world of his own, an ‘ideal’ world.
In other words, each of these domains has its own unique place in the overall project of culture. And to really understand them we need to understand how they do complement each other in the overall project that is humanity. And that is the purpose of philosophy.
The problem with this claim, as I explained at the beginning of the thread, is that science cannot tell us what constitutes being real, or being true. And your claim is left hollow when you can give "real" and "true" whatever meaning you want. So scientism will give us the circular argument that "real" and "true" is what science demonstrates to us, therefore "any object/phenomenon/concept can only be proven to be real or true based on the scientific method".
Yes I understand that science can only tell us what's real for us humans. And since our perception is limited, then the science will also be limited.
But again, it has very practical applications, most of which may only be suitable for humans but suitable nonetheless.
I'd tell a sick person to go to a doctor, not a shaman for example.
You have an assumed "us" here. What substantiates the required proposition that what is real for me is the same as what is real for you, to support this assumed "us"? This is the point of relativism. And all I have to do is insist that what is real for me (perhaps all sorts of supernatural things) is different from what is real for you, to refute your claim of "us". To support your claim you would need to prove that I am lying. But if I truly believe what I am saying, then I am not lying.
Yes I agree and that's where science comes in. If you say you caught a 14 inch fish, I can confirm by bringing along a tape measure.
But it really depends what we're talking about. If it's something that can be observed, measured or possibly recorded then there are a lot of things we can use to confirm what you're saying.
OK, let's talk about that part of reality which cannot be measured or observed, how is the scientific method the only way to prove that these things are real?
If we restrict reality to 'only the things which the scientific method can prove', then all those things which cannot be proven by science, are necessarily not real. And all that part of reality which cannot be measured or observed is necessarily not real.
Well, I suppose we first have to agree on the definition of "real." For me, "real" are things that can be scientifically proven to be real.
But again, that's not to say (or rather I didn't mean to say) that unproven things are automatically not real.
Rather that they will remain unknown or unverified. 95% of the universe falls in this category so I understand that it's definitely possible for unproven things to exist.
Let me give you an example. Let's take the natural numbers. We have numerals, 1,2,3,4, which are symbols, representations of numbers. The numbers themselves cannot be observed. And if we wanted to measure the natural numbers, we would try to count them. But the count goes on indefinitely, so they never really get counted or measured. Therefore we can say that they cannot be measured.
Are these numbers something real? We cannot prove scientifically that they exist, because we cannot even determine where they are, to observe them. Yet they clearly have an effect in the world, as we can see the products of mathematics all around us. So how would you define "real", as anything observable, and measurable by scientific methods, in which case numbers are not real? Or would you define "real" as anything which has an observable and measurable effect in the world, in which case numbers might be real.
If we choose the latter definition, allowing that numbers have some form of reality due to the effects which they bring about in the world, then we ought to allow the truth of the proposition that there are things which cannot be observed, or measured by science, which have an effect in our world, and are therefore real.
I am glad I am not the only one who gets overwhelmed. This forum really requires thinking, unlike a political forum I am in where no one is thinking, they are just reacting to each other, mostly with insults. They make verb war and this pulls everyone down to that level. While here we put in effort and climb higher. I don't think people who won't put in the effort are here for long.
The historical context of this cannot be ignored. In this respect,@Gnomon brought in the whole idea of dialectical truth as expressed by Hegel.I have not touched upon the ideas of Hegel as I would like and do plan to read in this area because I do believe that it is extremely important.
But the point I would wish to make here is that while we regard current thinking as extremely important, and I am not actually disputing the extent of knowledge of this information age, but at the same time we have to avoid a sense of superiority. It is possible that certain aspects of truth are being lost. Here, I would say that I question some of the depth of knowledge available on the internet, believing that it glosses on surfaces and does not go to the depths and foundations of the real searches of the thinkers of many ideas.
One other point I about the historical context is the whole idea of hermeticism, as attribute to the person known as Hermes Trimegistus, which was a foundation for Western thinking, including both science and religion, as well as philosophy. Perhaps this source, as well as gnosticism and paganism, is as important in thinking about the question of relativism in comparative, historical terms, rather than the matter being seen only in terms of comparative, anthropological terms. And perhaps the whole dialogue between religion and science does not have to be construed in terms of the Judaeo- Christian tradition alone.
Yes, I think that this whole area of discussion has so many aspects and that is why I am becoming rather overwhelmed. There are so many facets of discussion to explore, arising from each person's comments (and people getting into petty insults, which get in the way!)
My feeling is that this thread should not be a rushed one but one that grows slowly. It is not one for immediate answers or ones which avoid 'mistakes' as today's new area of speculation asks.The whole subject matter allows for experimental possibilities, mixed with careful reflection. It is not as if we have a strict deadline, as long as we are alive, for acquiring wisdom in these areas of intricate thought.
'Most thinking people who seek answers to the problems of "life, the universe and everything" want two things"- certainty and freedom. They want to know that their search for meaning has led them to ultimate truth and that they have liberty to seek, formulate and live by that truth. For atheists the result of their investigation is very satisfactory: since no ultimate source of ethical authority exists they are free to live their lives exactly as they wish, choosing for themselves whatever moral restraints(if any) they elect to impose upon themselves. For the the rest of humanity life is not so simple.'
This quotation opens the doors to the panorama of possibilities arising from relativism. Any thoughts?
As I understand it, science is to democracy what religion is to autocracy. The miracle of democracy is group thinking. When we question what is right and what is wrong, and share our different points of view, our understanding is much greater than when we do not discuss right and wrong. Learning what the Bible has to say about right and wrong, is not equal to thinking through right and wrong.
That might make one think replacing education for independent thinking with groupthink is a good thing, but it is not because groupthink leads to conformity and reliance on authority, not independent thinking.
Education for groupthink has brought us to reactionary politics and tribalism, not actually thinking and working for a consensus on the best reasoning.
Wise words. You speak of the difference between reacting and thinking. Sleeping on a thought is a wonderful idea as our right brain can chew on the thought while we sleep and create new insight that our left-brain can not do.
This is really about culture and why we have cultural conflict today. We have been electing presidents who boast about not thinking too much before making a decision. While many of us think that is being reactionary and not good thinking. While the tribe who sees being reactionary as a sign of strength rather than weakness insults the presidents who listen to many people and do a lot of thinking before making a decision. Can others see this cultural conflict? If I am correct, and not just biased, being reactionary tends to go with being religious, while the slow thinkers seem more reliant on science. Those who want to stand with the power and glory of God, seem to like power, but not the uncertainty that goes with thinking things through and listening to what others say, and accepting the scientific method as a better way to know truth.
Occult Mysticism and Explicit Science are two different perspectives on the same world. Holistic Mystics tend to view the world metaphorically (poetically) as a system of unanalyzed concepts (symbols, feelings), taken at face value, without getting into the details. But Analytical Scientists are just the opposite : they want to delve into details, in order to dispel the mysteries, and to uncover the unknowns.
Scientists are curious cats, constantly probing deeper into dark places, and being skeptical of motives when told "don't go there". On the other hand, Mystics seem to enjoy the childlike wondrous feeling of being dependent on magical forces beyond understanding (trusting faith). Esoteric worldviews require specialized Priests or Adepts, who do the understanding of complex mysteries on behalf of the children, the flock. But scientists don't like being treated like children, who "can't handle the Truth".
Ironically, some religious people (theologians) tend toward an analytical scientific worldview, while some quantum scientists come close to being mysterians --- "shut-up and calculate". Although I lean more toward the scientific worldview, my personal BothAnd principle requires me to take into account the ambiguous realities of Cultural Relativism. :nerd:
Esoteric : intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.
Note -- Both Science and Mysticism have their Gnostic Adepts, who interpret abstruse concepts for the ignorant masses. But they differ in their attitude toward "blissful" ignorance.
Mysterians : The mysterians propose that human intellect has boundaries and that some of nature's mysteries may forever lie beyond our comprehension.
Mysterian Science : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-science-ever-solve-the-mysteries-of-consciousness-free-will-and-god/
Dualist Mysterians : The “old mysterians” were dualists who believed in nonmaterial properties, such as the soul, that cannot be explained by natural processes.
https://michaelshermer.com/sciam-columns/final-mysterians-consciousness-free-will-god/
Shut-up and Calculate : [i]One of the biggest dangers in presenting quantum unknowns is sophism; a wasteful exercise in fruitless scholasticism and mysticism.
“If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be ‘Shut up and calculate!’ ”[/i]
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-70815-7_10
BothAnd Principle : Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ? what’s true for you ? depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Both/And thinking : Like fuzziness, both/and is well illustrated by the Yin-Yang symbol and Yin-Yang thinking
https://www.beyondwilber.ca/healing-thinking/both-and-logic.html
Yes, it's called "deliberative democracy". It is a tough read though. Personally, I think that is important. We should challenge ourselves. Sometimes even with opposing viewpoints. :)
Yes, I am definitely interested in listening to others, with critical but not an attacking stance. In that respect, I wait and see what happens next in the enfoldment of ideas. Really, I try to keep as an open mind as possible and, perhaps, my open mindedness will be be my downfall, but I hope that it will be something more, in terms of creativity and synthesis amidst the deluge of broken down philosophies in an increasingly chaotic world.
I think that we should definitely challenge ourselves by looking and reading all points of view, even if we end up with bad headaches in the process.
I definitely think that you make some very important points. I will try to look up your links and keep in touch, but I will do it gradually because apart from headaches if I read too much, I end up lying awake all night, thinking constantly But, I definitely value your ideas and will continue to communicate. In the meantime, I think that you have a lot to contribute to this and other thread discussions.
Symbols like letters and numbers themselves have no meaning unless we apply them to some context that gives them meaning.
We can't just put together a series of numbers and letters and expect them to have some sort of value or meaning.
Context and function comes first. So even before we choose those letters or numbers we already know what we want them to do, giving them value and meaning.
That's how I understand them to be at least.
How's this relevant to defining "real"? Is "what we want them to do", or "value", or "meaning", something real?
Is "real" confined to what is observable, or does it include things, like the above mentioned, which have an observable effect in the world, but are not observable themselves?
I don't know in what way these symbols are not "observable." Is it in the sense that someone is conceiving a set of symbols in their heads and chooses not to reveal them?
I would think that once anyone writes or prints the symbol then immediately the symbol becomes observable.
The mentioned things, which are not observable, were "what we want to do", "value", and "meaning", not the symbols. These things are not observable, yet they clearly have an observable effect on our world.
Ah ok. I suppose, like symbols, concepts/intentions/ideas/values - once expressed, will also become real.
Added: But, that's not to say that mere utterances become true realities as in "I believe 4 is greater than 5" makes it so that 4 does indeed become greater than 5. But, what I'm saying is that my expressing the phrase "4 is greater than 5" makes the phrase itself real as I just presented it.
However, I can show how 4 can be greater than 5 if I add the letters "kg" and "lb" in the right places. lol
I get the feeling that I'm clearly out of my depth here, though haha
Now, since this unobservable, unmeasurable, aspect of... (reality?) is causal, as evidenced by the
observable and measurable existence of artificial things, ought we not assign "real" to these unobservable things? What would be the point (other than a misguided attempt to justify some form of scientism) in denying "real" from the unobservable "intention", when it has real causal efficacy.
In my opinion, unless verified/proven, it will remain unverified or unproven.
I totally agree with you but I know it is almost impossible for me to read or listen to an opposing idea. I quickly have such an irritable feeling I have to stop reading or listening. Short posts are not a problem but a whole book! That would be a long time of feeling uncomfortable. I think we might underestimate how much our bodies play into our reaction to thoughts?
Now if the culture is less intense than the culture in the US, differences may not impact the population so intensely but right now the US has a very in-your-face culture. When I was young I was taught it is rude to discuss religion or politics, and sexual lives were certainly private, but today people are very blunt about their beliefs and they want to be sure everyone knows where they stand. Our news is now biased and the young don't even know the unbiased journalism we had in the past.
Is my point of view the result of my own thinking in my later years or do others think our culture has changed to a more in-your-face culture that is more likely to become violent?
So you find it difficult to read books which are opposing views to your own. To some extent, I think that we gravitate to those which reinforce ours but sometimes I really enjoy reading opposing views. Yes, it is a good question how our bodies react to the books we read. Unless I am really immersed I usually have to get up and have a walk around every so often while I am reading.
You ask whether we are living in a more in your face culture, which is likely to become violent. Obviously everywhere is different but I think that I have noticed a bit of an improvement since the pandemic. In places where I go, like the cafes where I go to read, people seem more civil and this may be because all the lockdowns etc. have shaken up the day to day reality, often taken for granted.
I just wrote of my intolerance of opposing thoughts and you remind me I see myself as a rather open-minded person. :chin: I think both are true of me. There are some things I am passionate about and many things I am just curious about. I wish so much I could travel around the world because that expands a person's consciousness and I think the more we expand our consciousness, the less judgmental we are.
In this forum the way people react to each other is awesome! At the moment I can not tolerate the political forum because those clowns are only interested in bashing each other and they totally miss discussing issues.
Our culture is missing the importance of good manners and I don't think this was always so. I collect old grade school textbooks because I wanted to know how teachers, such as my grandmother, defended democracy in the classroom. We transmitted a culture and stressed good manners. "Dick and Jane" readers were not just about learning how to read, but also learning how to live with consideration for others and good manners. These books were not perfect and contributed to sexism and racism but they are better than enticing children to read socially inappropriate books that encourage an amoral society. Over 6 thousand years of civilized development dropped from education in favor of education for a technological society with unknown values may not be a good idea?
"Relativism" brings in the cultural factor and we were not always an amoral society. In the past scientific discoveries such as pasteurizing milk and saving the lives of thousands of children, had people thrilled about science and filled them with hope for our future. Right now, that seems to be turned upside down! We believe we are at the end of times, not at the beginning of a wonderful new future. Technology and education for an amoral society may give us more freedom but it also gives us social chaos and violence and we think we are at the end of times. Something has gone dreadfully wrong.
I just looked at your links now and liked the idea by Rolf Satler, that, 'Buddhist logic is liberating because it transcends not only the restrictive either/ or of our common way of thinking, but even the both/and of the much more inclusive and healing both/and logic.'
This is an important point. In looking at ideas apart from accuracy I think the truth does include the whole dimension of the healing aspect they offer, because we are not just machines looking for answers. We are looking for thoughts to inspire us and make life worth living.
I have not travelled very much but I do not mind too much because I feel that I have interacted with so many people from different backgrounds. This was true for me when I have been working. This site is the first opportunity I have experienced of discussion ideas on an international level. Recently,have moved into a house with 9 other people and each one is from a different country, although communication is a bit difficult with language differences.
I have to admit that I cannot speak any other language apart from English proficiently.I did learn some French and German at school but did not give this much attention because I focused most of my attention on art and English tliterature. Of course, the downside is that when I read books which are not written in English I have to rely on translations.
I do think that we are inclined to act like we are the end of history. I think that it is a problem and leads us to lack responsibility towards future generations and the environment.
I have found doing simple math when I am over-excited by something I am reading, will get me back into left-brain thinking, but until now, I have never tried that when the problem is reading an opposing point of view and having very negative feelings. You and everyone else here, push me to be a better human being. This is the total opposite of the political forum! The political forum can pull out the worst in a human being and right now the US is having a serious political problem so things probably do look worse to me than others. A vacation to a more peaceful country would be welcomed.
On the other hand, the fires we had this year, and the epidemic, have triggered the best in people. At least Christmas drives for food and gifts have been very successful this year. But some of us are being downright hostile about wearing masks and shutting down businesses. It is crazy as people want both the freedom to run around without masks and to sit in bars and restaurants. They don't get those two things don't go well together and often these people do not watch the news because it is so unpleasant so they don't know the science and that hospitals are struggling. I don't think other countries are having so much trouble getting people to comply with protecting everyone's health? We seem to be very polarized between those who favor religion and those who favor science.
I most certainly don't find maths would help my thinking. What I find helps most is lying on my bed for a couple of hours, and listening to a couple of albums, ranging from alternative rock etc to dance music.
As far as health priorities go, from what I have seen in England, the answers are not simple. On one hand, it is about shutting down businesses, to protect the health of the vulnerable, but that had knock on effects. So many have been thrown into complete poverty and having to go to food banks and mental health problems have escalated, with the suicide rate rising, due to social restrictions.
While the idea of thinking of protecting the 'vulnerable' seems good it is complicated, because in doing this others are becoming the newly 'vulnerable.'
I am imagining that Christmas is going to be the biggest disaster of the year for England because the rules are going to be relaxed so much for 5 days, and I think it is likely that the infection rate is going to rocket beyond all proportions, and I wonder if Christmas is that important in the current predicament. We will just have to wait and see what happens next year because I have just seen in the news that many people working in healthcare are refusing to have the vaccine. I would have thought it would be mandatory because, having worked in healthcare, I had many mandatory rules which I had to comply with.
But I do think that most of us think of ourselves and those closest to us, but it is so important not to become insular, and to be able to see matters from other people's perspectives.
I am so hoping the change in leadership in the US changes the whole ball game for everyone, but we are so divided things could get worse instead of better.
I want to stress the importance of "morale" and the American Spirit portrayed in the mural at the US Capitol Building. We have a high morale when we believe we are doing the right thing. Philosophy/Science, since Athens, has been the method to determine what the right thing is. Christianity did oppose that and closed all the pagan temples which were places of learning, and for a few hundred years Europe was in the grip of the dark ages. People who argue against that are not understanding the difference between technology and science. People without science can develop technology. But technology alone does not lead to moral thinking, and therefore, does not lead to a high morale.
We have the technology but our morale is so low we are not strongly behind going with science and technology. With the opposition to the change in US leadership, the new leadership may not be able to get our morale up, but if that opposition is not too strong and the new leadership can boost morale, we might realize a New Age, a time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny. But perhaps this is like trying to put the spark of romance in an old marriage? Our marriage to religion has us going in the wrong direction. We live in the best time in history and are so negative, few can imagine a good outcome and if we can't imagine it, we can not manifest it.
I love it. :heart: The ancient philosophers were adamant on the importance of good music.
Plato..."Music is a moral law. It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and charm and gaiety to life and to everything.
"Quoting Jack Cummins
God works in strange ways. We can not enter a New Age without realizing the wrongs of our past and stop repeating those wrongs. Especially in the US, some people believe they are superior to others and therefore more deserving. They do not realize what their advantages have to do with being superior, nor what luck has to do with their opportunity and getting ahead. God taught me the lessons in the 1970 recession when OPEC embargo oil to the US. Until then I thought poverty was a meaningful experience that those of us born white and middle class could not have. We could only play at poverty because at any time we could get a good job, or call our parents for help. It is not the experience of poverty until the economy collapses and there is no opportunity and no one to call for help.
With the mentality of abundance, we have created a worsening reality and this had to be rebalanced. That makes the terrible things of which you speak, good. Let us experience the terrible things and then come to the meeting table and talk about the importance of equality and how we might improve it. Is democracy about corporate wealth and ignoring the homeless? Is it a better education for your children, and just unfortunate that some children have nothing like the education in better schools, nor do they have lives that mean security and met needs so they can focus on their studies? Nothing is going to make people care enough about the issues than knowing "There but for the grace of God go I".
Quoting Jack Cummins
I am so sorry.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I would not trust the new vaccines either, but I heard a report that we were ahead of the game because of previous work done on similar viruses/vaccines and how computers speed up the research process. I think a greater effort to inform the public could make a difference. :rage: We have to stop the people at the top from thinking of themselves as superior when the truth is they are better informed and hold more power. President Trump not only received better information in the very beginning, but he withheld it from the public. I think England puts more effort into informing the public than the US, which has stopped supporting public broadcasting, therefore, it does not have the funds to do necessary programs, and public broadcasting stations struggle to survive. Democracy and liberty demand a well-informed public who are then empowered to act on what they know. We need to work on this instead of expecting the masses to just obey and thinking the best way to get them to behave well is to punish them.
The bottom line may be what we believe is true of humans? Do we believe they are capable of self-government, or should they obey their superiors? If they are capable of self-government, then how do we enable them to be self-governing? What happens when we think democracy is rule by reason?
I only recently became aware of Satler's site, espousing -- among other things -- "Both/And Logic". He seems to follow Ken Wilbur, and his Integral Theory philosophy. Although I read some of Wilbur's books, many years ago, my own BothAnd Principle developed directly from the Holistic implications of the Enformationism Thesis.
Wilbur seems to be mostly influenced by Eastern Philosophy, hence may be categorized as a New Age philosopher. I agree with much of his Holistic worldview, but he focuses more on spiritual & mystical aspects of the world --- along with Transpersonal Psychology, which may be a technical term for the study of Spirituality.
My own educational background was mostly influenced by Analytical Science and the mundane aspects of Reality, but my philosophical emphasis tends more toward Metaphysics, because that is the primary domain of Philosophy --- the "Linguistic Turn" of Postmodernism, and the recent Materialistic (anti-spiritual) backlash, notwithstanding. So, we have that psychological inclination in common. And Buddhism was an early "science" of human psychology. Likewise, Taoism is essentially a Holistic worldview.
The key to all of these holistic philosophical tropes is to include all aspects of the world, rather than totally rejecting certain aspects from consideration. That way we can put our own narrow perspective (partial truth) into a broader context. :smile:
Fuzzy Logic :
Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. It is employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
The BothAnd Philosophy :
[i]* Philosophy is the study of ideas & beliefs. Not which are right or wrong – that is the province of Religion and Politics – but which are closer to universal Truth. That unreachable goal can only be approximated by Reason & Consensus, which is the method of Science. In addition to ivory tower theories, applied Philosophy attempts to observe the behavior of wild ideas in their natural habitat.
* The BothAnd philosophy is primarily Metaphysical, in that it is concerned with Ontology, Epistemology, & Cosmology. Those categories include abstract & general concepts, such as : G*D, existence, causation, Logic, Mathematics, & Forms.
* The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Divine Wisdom of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires “skin in the game”* to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism. That feedback establishes limits to freedom and boundaries to risk-taking. BA is a principle of Character & Virtue, viewed as Phronesis or Pragmatism, instead of Piety or Perfectionism.
* The BA philosophy is intended to be based on empirical evidence where possible, but to incorporate reasonable speculation were necessary. As my personal philosophy, the basic principle is fleshed-out in the worldview of Enformationism, which goes out of the Real world only insofar as to establish the universal Ground of Being, and the active principle in Evolution.
Notes -- Phronesis : an Ancient Greek word for a type of wisdom or intelligence. It is more specifically a type of wisdom relevant to practical action, implying both good judgement and excellence of character and habits, or practical virtue.
* ref : Skin In The Game, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb; researcher in philosophical, mathematical, and (mostly) practical problems with probability.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
So you agree that what it means to be real, or to be true, remains unverified and unproven. Do you also see that the following statement makes no sense?
Quoting 8livesleft
How could the scientific method prove anything to be real or true, when what it means to be real or true remains unproven?
Maybe. Like the unobserved part of the universe. I doubt there's nothing there just because we haven't the tools to see that far. But then we have to go with probabilities and likelihoods. So, stars would probably exist in the unobserved universe but not floating tacos.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Are you saying that all real things are unverified and unproven? I don't think that's the case. But, for sure, some unproven/unverified things are real.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
What I'm trying to say is that I don't know of a better method that can identify whether something exists or not but I agree that it's not a perfect method, as in my unobserved universe example.
You seem to be a bit bogged down with the whole idea of proof, regarding truth.
Two ideas which might be useful for you to think about are the two concepts of knowledge, a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Lacey(1996) summarises the distinction in the following way,
'A priori knowledge is that which has its justification independently of experience, though it may presuppose experience from which we get the concepts it involves', whereas, 'Knowledge which can only be by at least some appeal to experience (basically the five senses, and perhaps introspection) is called a posteriori."
I think it is important to remember these principles, which you may well be familiar with, which were discussed in detail by Kant. The knowledge which is empirical, is subject to the scientific method, and experimental proof. This is in contrast to 'a priori' knowledge which includes mathematics but can also be applied to other forms of knowledge which can be ascertained through reason.
Yes, thank you for the explanation. Though, what I'm trying to do is to answer your question above. Science is not perfect but I think it's the best we have at the moment.
I am extremely interested in the whole transpersonal school of psychology, including Ken Wilber. I have read 'The Pocket Ken Wilber' recently. In his introduction to the book, Colin Bigelow says,
' Ken has literally spent his entire life trying to touch bases of reality, and human life in particular, and see how all those pieces fit together. Unfortunately, in today's cultural and academic atmosphere, the emphasis is often on differences in human cultures, subcultures, and historically marginalised groups of any kind. These differences are indeed real, and they must be respected, but when there is no attempt in finding the patterns that connect...then we are no longer diverse, radiant, holistic of spirit...'
For readers of this thread who have not come across Wilber, I will point to one of his important ideas which is relevant to this whole area of discussion. That is whole idea of the 'witness'and he says, 'Within the deep silence of the great unborn, Spirit whispers a sublime secret, an otherwise hidden truth of one's very essence: You, in this and every moment, abide as Spirit itself, an immutable radiance beyond the mortal suffering of time and experience.'
Here, Ken Wilber is touching upon intuition beyond science. I don't think that the scientific method itself is able to grasp and measure wisdom at all and perhaps that is its limitation in trying to captivate truth.
When Wilbur talks like a poetic mystic, he loses me. I'm more of a mundane Pragmatist than a sublime Mystic. Nevertheless, some of the implications of the Enformationism thesis get pretty close to New Age notions of spirituality. But then, I try to keep my worldview grounded in objective Science, because mystical balloons that are not moored, tend to drift away into the ether, where fictions can feel good subjectively, but cannot be proven true factually. I try to make sense of both Ideality and Reality -- as aspects of one world. I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out. :smile:
Mystic : a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect. ___Wiki
Intuition : Many people regard Reasoning the opposite of Intuition. Reasoning is rational thinking using logic, while Intuition is unconscious, a paranormal gift, a magical awareness not accessible for normal humans, or a connectivity to an all knowing esoteric field.
https://thinkibility.com/2012/11/17/reasoning-versus-intuition/
PS__I prefer a non-mystical definition of "Intuition".
I have to admit that even though I try to hold onto the objectivity of science the poetry of mysticism is my real language.
I love the writings of William Blake, Dante, the metaphysical poetry of John Donne and ' A Vision' by W B Yeats. I also love fiction, including plenty of dark fantasy.
But on this site you are probably better off that you shy away from poetic mysticism as I think it is a bit taboo. But I am inclined to believe that the symbolism of literature can touch aspects of truth equivalent to the logic and methods of the hard sciences.
I just looked at your link. Actually, Athena recommended, 'Thinking Fast and Slow,' by Daniel Kahneman, for me to read a few weeks ago in discussion on another thread.
I have read some but not all of it. I was fairly impressed. While I am more arts based generally, I do believe in keeping up with the latest theories, a including social and hard science, alongside historical ones. I do believe this gives us the best way of arriving at a comprehensive and informed perspective,
I agree it's very broad that's why I'm limiting myself to more practical things like say, medicine, engineering, physical objects, climate, biology etc...things that are basically within the realm of the sciences.
Of course, you can take the option of focusing upon the aspects of life just involving practical issues, according to practical knowledge, as evidenced by the sciences directly.
Personally, I am more concerned with the philosophy questions which are less able to be discerned by the methodology of the sciences. The scope of my own exploration includes questions about how mankind should live and find healing solutions.
The aspect of medicine which has been my main interest is psychiatry, and this is less clear cut than many others. I would say that neuroscience is bringing great advances but, nevertheless, the whole issues of mental illness and suffering do, inevitably, raise philosophical questions.
Also, I have, and still do, struggle with the questions raised by religion. I was brought up as a Roman Catholic and the whole worldview which I was taught has left me with big questions. So, I do tend to explore other ways of thinking, including those of comparative cultures and the ideas arising from various scientific thinkers, including those within quantum physics.
That's interesting because I'm a Psychology graduate and I'm currently pursuing graduate studies in Psychology. I'm also technically a Roman Catholic haha
Anyway, I also have a lot of theories regarding the core cause of illness, our basic motivations, dream function etc...I find it funny how advanced we are with a lot of things but as you mentioned, when it comes to our own minds, we really haven't gotten very far.
Yes, that is interesting. What schools of psychology do you consider to be the most accurate or helpful ones?
I did A level psychology but only did modules of study in the subject on my studies after that. I might have gone on to do it psychology degree. I know people who are going down the pathway to becoming clinical psychologists, but it is extremely competitive.I have worked in mental health care, but think that I would like to go in a slightly different direction of work.
I love philosophy but that is my personal interest rather than one that can be made into a career. At the moment, I am just having a break because it is hard to look for work during the pandemic. But I am finding that philosophy is certainly keeping me busy, and I love writing.
When I chose Psychology, it's because I wanted to get into counselling. Family, couple, groups, youth. Family counselling especially because I find the family unit to be extremely important because that forms the base on how we deal and interact with the world. Grow up in abuse or neglect and most likely you will carry that with you and possibly continue that pattern because that's what you grew up with.
But in terms of accuracy, maybe Clinical Psychology because it covers most bases with regards to mental illness. This is what I'm focusing on now since I hear it's easier to go from Clinical to Counselling than the other way around.
I'm pretty old for school but this pandemic has kinda thrown a wrench at life and so I figured why not try learning new skills at a field I like? My sister in law is taking a course on healthy natural cooking. Healthy eating is definitely hot nowadays so that's a good choice.
That said, Psychology here isn't quite as popular because we're a deeply religious country and most still prefer that path for solutions. But, it's thankfully a growing field.
I did wish to become an art therapist or a psychotherapist. However, there are very few jobs in this field.
I think I do not see paid work as the real 'work ' necessarily any longer. I see getting a job just as a way of supporting myself financially in order to do the more important 'work' of art, writing and philosophy.
I don't think that I would wish to become a therapist any more. I find sorting out my own feelings and thoughts hard enough, let alone those of others. But I do listen to others and try to engage in meaningful dialogues about life and all its conundrums.
That's a great strategy. This Pandemic is telling us that life's too short to be focused on just making money. We have to take what little time we have to do what we love to do.
I noticed your comment about the 'real' and 'meaning,' and believe that the questions about these areas are very real, despite the apparent cultural relativism of our times.
In your last post, you make a valid point, that, '"Relativism" brings in the cultural factor and we were not always an amoral society,' and you add, 'Something has gone dreadfully wrong.'
Yesterday, I was reading a book, 'The Death of Truth,' by Michiko Katutani(2018). He argues that relativism has been rising since the 1960s, originally adopted by the left wing, and later by some right wing ones, leading to the idea 'that there are no universal truths, only smaller personal truths_ perceptions shaped by the cultural and social forces of one's day.
Katutani traces the way in which postmodern deconstruction and nihilistic views are being given prominence,especially on the internet. He points to the way in which leaders can use relativism as a starting point for manipulation and an indifferent attitude towards truth, especially in the political arena I think that this is an interesting and important argument.
Here's something you might want to consider, Jack. There's an epistemological standard which proposes that knowledge is justified true belief. And there is supposed to be a difference between "justified" and "true". Justification is what one might call objectification. It is the cultural process whereby we demonstrate or prove to each other our reasons for believing what we believe. Notice that "objective" in this context of epistemology, does not mean "of the object", referring to the object which is supposedly known, it means intersubjective. This means that the group who supposedly know, are the object, in "objective" here. What is "of the object" known, is supposedly the truth. But we do not really have access to "truth" in this sense, we only have how we perceive the object, and how others perceive the object, and the so-called "objective" or culturally justified perception. So "truth" in that sense, of "what is of the object", is rendered completely irrelevant to knowledge.
This would leave "truth", in that sense of what is "of the object" as right outside of any possible knowledge. And objectivity in knowledge is what is justified. Now we need to look for another sense of "true" to see how truth could be any part of, or play any role in knowledge. We find another sense which relates to honesty. This is a subjective sense of truth, as "of the subject". But we can see that honesty plays a very important role in knowledge. Justification is the means by which beliefs are objectified, but if an individual justifies a belief which one does not truly believe (dishonestly), then we have a deception, which produces a justified, but untrue belief.
So it may turn out that when people commonly seek an "objective truth" there is really no such thing. Real truth is subjective, as authenticity, what a person truly believes,
Yes, I think your argument is correct really. We cannot know truth in the absolute sense. As you state, 'Real truth is subjective, as authenticity, what a person truly believes.'
I do think that the best we can do is come up with the truth as we see it from our own honest perspective. Of course, views may change at different times in our lives depending on how the facts present themselves to us.
But in my own authentic understanding I often look at matters, especially in the area of religion and can see the arguments on both sides, with my own opinions tipping from one direction to another from time to time. The question on which I hover on the point of uncertainty most is the subject of my previous thread, the question of life after death. I tend to go around in circles. Most people tend to think yes, or no, but in this respect, there must be a real answer, so obviously some are wrong, but perhaps it doesn't matter really.
I think one other issue can sway subjective truth is what we wish the truth to be. It is easy to filter beliefs according to what we wish the truth to be.
Or, in my case, I sometimes think of the worst possibilities, especially if I am in a negative state of mind. Then, building up my fears, I then have to convince myself that is not true.
The Greeks knew people around the world were different. They also had a notion of what it means to be civilized or pagan or barbarian. It seemed obvious to them those who refused to accept the Greek stand of living were pagans or barbarians.
Could relativism have a negative effect on culture and civilization?
That process seems to be broken.
In the past, we had myth and religion to process the justification for what we believe. While knowing the truth has always been important, only in modern times has that meant science. The US never did develop a strong relationship with philosophy because of reliance on religion, and perhaps today that is a problem?
We seem to have a cultural divide between those who rely on religion and those who rely on science, and science lacks the qualities of cultivating culture, right? Without history and philosophy, I fear we are in deep trouble.
I do agree with you when you say that the 'process is broken', regarding the whole issue of proof.
I think it is hardest still if you are brought up with a mixture of religion and science, but not one fully. I think that is why I struggle with questions a lot, because I was taught a lot of contradictory ideas at school, and I am not just talking about the issue of evolution. I think some of it was around morality.
The reason I do believe that it was education that gave me a whole load of clashing is that I know that many people I went to school with have struggled with the contradictions too. In fact, two of the friends I am in touch with from school have had psychotic breakdowns, in which the context is of a religious nature, involving ideas such as the devil and the fallen angels.
I have struggled with ideas I was taught including the fall of the angels, although I think that idea is more from John Milton's, 'Paradise Lost', rather than Biblical. I do think that if I had not read like I do, ideas in the social sciences, as well as philosophy, I think that rather than just spending time contemplating ideas, I could have become psychotic. The two friends I speak of do not read philosophy and the kind of books I read. Actually, I was not aware that they were struggling with questions around religion until they became unwell mentally.
I have also come across people who have not been brought up with religious backgrounds at all who have developed religious psychosis too. I do believe that the clash between religion and science in our relativistic culture is the source of such psychosis. Personally, I have never got quite to that point, and for me it has just been an underlying worry, but I do believe that my own philosophy exploration is not simply a form of mental illness but a quest.
I think that this is a very significant part of being human, to be open to changing your mind, and to actually change in that way, is an important part of honesty and authenticity. When you hold a belief, and it becomes evident through some demonstration, or whatever, that your belief is not acceptable, you ought to release that belief. But for some reason, some people are not like this, they'll cling to some belief even though it's been conclusively demonstrated to be irrational.
Quoting Jack Cummins
In many instances, when persuasive evidence is not forthcoming, it is best to keep an open mind. To suspend judgement is a type of skepticism. I don't think there is anything dishonest with that, and if there is nothing pressing you, which needs a decision, then leave it that way for now. Maybe the question will end up being unimportant in the long run, even if it seems quite important now.
Quoting Jack Cummins
This, being swayed by what we wish for, is difficult to understand because it's a type of irrationality. It's sort of like buying lottery tickets when you know the odds are far against you. I think that this type of irrationality is closely related to the reason why people cling to a belief when it has been conclusively demonstrated to be false. It's a type of dishonesty, as a self-deception, when I tell myself that it's OK to believe this even though I know it is irrational. The inclination toward wanting to believe it is some emotion like a desire or want.
Quoting Athena
The problem is that science doesn't really give us truth, as per my discussion with Jack above. What gives us truth is a particular attitude of honesty, and it is probably the case that religion would be better suited toward culturing this attitude. Science gives us useful principles, hypotheses, but truth being associated with correspondence, involves how we employ those principles.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I think the relationship the US had with religion is not so removed from philosophy as Athena might think. It seems to me that religion was a way of contemplating the world and consequently the idea of reality. It as the truth.
I don’t think myth and religion was used, as suggested by Athena, to process the justification for what people believed, I think it was what they believed, what else did they have? But somehow I don’t think religion can go back to what it was and by that I means particular attitude. Of course people will claim that religion was always a lie. But in time philosophical and scientific ideas are proven wrong, which doesn’t necessarily mean they were a lie.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The principles of religion, and for my point it’s Christianity, were and still are, if chosen, still as relevant as philosophy is in its relationship to science. I guess I’m saying I still see religion and philosophy as one compared to science.
Quoting Athena
I don’t know if it’s true that science lacks the qualities of cultivating culture. But then we would need to define culture. Nor do I think there is always a divide between religion and science. If you believe in God then science is an investigation into his world.
Second thoughts:
I think it’s worth remembering, though you may not agree, that all three: religion, philosophy and science were, are, developed from a mind that reasons. They’ve all been ways of understanding the world. So they are in a sense unified in our attempt to understand ourselves and the world, each of them operating differently in trying to reach an understanding. Which suggests there is more to come.
I don't think it is correct to class religion and philosophy together, and separate science from these two. What separates religion from philosophy, is that religion is always structured, as an institution. And in this sense science and religion ought to be classed together, because science is structured as an institution. This allows that philosophy, being the quest for knowledge, might be free from adhering to any specific methods of a particular institution. I believe that this type of classification is necessary because we need to allow philosophy to get beyond both science and religion, to enable us to make judgements if there is an incompatibility between these institutions. Philosophy, being the quest for knowledge, is what actually gives us knowledge, wisdom, and the capacity to make sound judgements.
The institutions (conventions) of science will and do clash with the institutions of religion. Each will compete for recognition from the general public, for funding, etc., and acceptance in general. The general public, being made up of individuals, requires the means for making such judgements. The individual will need to turn to philosophy in order to develop the means for making an informed judgement. This is similar in principle to the judgement we are asked to make in a democracy for an election. We can vote along the lines of these conventions, or those conventions, being the ones which we naturally accept through the institutions which we are familiar with from our social environment, or we can make the effort, to take the time, and put the power of philosophy to work, and make a truly informed decision.
I think that science, philosophy and religion are distinct categories of experience and methods. They can all converge at some points and probably each one of us has to find our place on this map.
For many, in history it may have been possible to combine all three. I think that it is becoming harder, especially as scientific knowledge grows.
The main aspect which seems to be distinct in most religious perspectives is a belief in a supernatural or, at least, a superhuman order in the Eastern traditions.Philosophers or scientists can decide whether or not to take the religious aspect on board, or reject it completely.
But, as you say, it is about honesty, and we do not have to come to ultimate solutions immediately. I think that philosophy allows us to juggle the possibilities before us in the most authentic and critical way. If anything, I fear that many scientists may think that they have the monopoly on truth, regarding religion as magic 'nonsense' and even seeing philosophy as redundant and unnecessary.
I think the appeal of Science (Engineering; Technology) is primarily to those who think Abstractly & Reductively, while the appeal of Mysticism (Spiritualism, Religion) is to those who think Concretely & Holistically. That may be an over-simplification of a complex topic, but it helps me to understand how & why reasonable people can hold such divergent worldviews.
Physics is the most abstract & reductive of the sciences, while Biology & Chemistry necessarily deal with more concrete subjects, but they still dissect their subjects into isolated parts. Meanwhile, Metaphysics -- the subject of Philosophy and Poetry -- covers those aspects of reality that cannot be seen or touched or cut, hence must be inferred, and can only be expressed in terms of analogies & metaphors : concrete comparisons. Imitating scientists, some philosophers try to use analytical scalpels for metaphysical topics, but the abstruse results of their dismemberment tend to lie lifeless, like vivisected frogs.
People seem to be born with innate tendencies toward one end or the other of the Reductive/Holistic spectrum. But most of us are somewhere in the middle. Famous mystics may see the world through rose-colored romantic holistic glasses, while famous scientists view reality via the gray pragmatic X-ray vision of Analysis. Each type can try to see the other's perspective, but it's like learning a new language, in a foreign culture.
The term "Holism" was originally a scientific concept, but later was adopted by New Agers because it fit neatly into the newly-popular imported religious philosophies of India and China. Scientists now prefer the term "Systems Theory", because of the mystical taint on "Holism". Ironically, some of the pioneers of Quantum Science were also influenced by Eastern holism. For example, Heisenberg -- after a journey to the Far East -- wrote "all fundamental aspects of physical reality, which had been so difficult for him and his fellow physicists to 'make sense of', was the very basis of the Indian spiritual tradition". Nevertheless, while I appreciate the broad general holistic wisdom of the ancients, I prefer to rely on modern science for an accurate understanding of the specific details.
While in college, I made a break with my Western religious upbringing, but still retained some affinity for holistic thinking. So for a while, I was attracted to Theosophy, which claimed to combine modern science with ancient wisdom traditions. Like, most of the New Age philosophies though, Theosophy has since fragmented into dozens of piecemeal worldviews ( e.g. Anthroposophy). So, I no longer find such mystical views attractive. However, I have developed my own personal worldview (Enformationism), which aims to bridge the abyss between Physics & Metaphysics, without going to extremes of Materialism or Mysticism. :cool:
Holism : Holism is the idea that various systems should be viewed as wholes, not merely as a collection of parts. The term "holism" was coined by Jan Smuts in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism
Systems Theory : Systems theory, also called systems science, is the multidisciplinary study of systems to investigate phenomena from a holistic approach.
Theosophy : [i](god wisdom) is a religion established in the United States during the late nineteenth century. It was founded primarily by the Russian immigrant Helena Blavatsky and draws its teachings predominantly from Blavatsky's writings.
. . .any of a number of philosophies maintaining that a knowledge of God may be achieved through spiritual ecstasy, direct intuition, or special individual relations,[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy
True. Typically, scientists don't claim to reveal absolute Truths, but merely useful facts that we can rely on for practical applications. But many Western religions make bold assertions of divine revelations of Eternal Truth. That is the root of the Science vs Religion controversy. I agree that religions would be less socially divisive, if they promoted the character trait of honest appraisal (self-skepticism) of one's own beliefs, with as much enthusiasm as they promote skepticism toward the unorthodox doctrines of other sects. :smile:
Science Does Not Reveal Truth : https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulmsutter/2019/10/27/science-does-not-reveal-truth/?sh=5609bca038c3
Eternal Truth : Truth, eternal truth, is the groundwork of the Christian's hope: it is the only sure rock on which he can build.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-23?lang=eng
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I think you’re right. I tried to correct myself in my ‘second thoughts’ post.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
In the beginning I don’t think that’s necessarily true. It’s definitely become structured and as a consequence a little irrelevant. But don’t you think that despite philosophy’s openness to questioning it largely falls back on logic and reason, which is about as structured as you can get. And the same with science.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I certainly value the need for making informed judgements or choices. But it seems to me that some choices can only be made on the basis of either religion, philosophy or science. Are all philosophical choices correct? Or science? Or religion? What was the decision to drop a bomb on Hiroshima based on?
Well I don't really agree, because philosophy addresses issues which fall out of the reach of formal logic.
So what it "falls back on" is an odd sort of reasoning, like abductive, which is better described as intuition rather than structured logic. This is what makes philosophers and philosophies unique and distinct in their reasoning. Scientists use very structured forms of deductive and inductive logic. However, we can see that scientists do think outside the box when proposing hypotheses, and I would say that this is where science relies on philosophy, but in verifying the hypotheses through the use of experimentation and observation, they are supposed to adhere to more strict formal logic.
Quoting Brett
I would say that the decision to drop the bomb was a philosophical choice. It's a decision which required going beyond a direct application of scientific principles, and also beyond the direct application of religious principles. So the decision relies on some further intuition. Notice that the vast majority of any seemingly important decisions which we make on a day to day basis are like this. That's why philosophy is important. And the reason why these important decisions are so difficult to make is that we cannot appeal to either science, or religion, for decisive guidance as to what is correct.
We commonly make decisions to do things which would have huge import if we went another way, (like not to kill the person I am mad at for example) but we are already so culturally ingrained to recognize what we are doing as correct, through either the principles of religion, or science, that we don't even think about, or consider any alternatives. It is only when the choice is not obvious, that we must think and use philosophy in an attempt to access relevant principles which at a first glance would not seem evident, or relevant. Having to think before making the decision creates the appearance that the decision is important, but it's not necessarily so, as people can get really stressed out over relatively insignificant decisions. And on the other side, we rush through all sorts of important decisions without even thinking about them because of that cultural indoctrination.
The question of what constitutes a correct choice, and whether a philosophical choice is necessarily correct, is another issue altogether. We could define "correct" along the lines of what is justified by cultural norms. But you'll see that different norms will produce conflicting decisions of "correct", as is evident sometimes in the clash of science and religion, and clashes between various religions and cultures. This indicates that "correct" cannot be adequately defined in this way. That is the issue which Plato ran into in trying to define "just" in "The Republic". This implies that we need to look for a true definition of "correct" rather than a justified definition, in the way that "true" has been defined by Jack Cummins and I earlier in the thread, which relates "true" to honest.
So if an individual acts according to what one truly and honestly believes, this could constitute a "correct" decision. The problem is that a "correct" decision, when "correct" is defined in this way, might still be mistaken. The person might not properly consider the evidence, or judge what is relevant, or have deficient capacity of judgement in some other way. Since an honest decision does not necessarily exclude the possibility of mistake, we cannot truthfully define "correct" in this way. Therefore we are inclined to look for a definition of "correct" which transcends the individual's own personal capacity, to take into account all possible relevant information, and define it according to the decision which some omniscient, omnibenevolent being like God would make, to validate a real definition of "correct".
Been there done that. I thought I was possessed and was on the verge of killing people. I had to make a decision- is all that demon, devil stuff for real or not? I am very glad I decided it is not. Later a came across information about post-trauma syndrome and then I found a book about traumatized children and found a counselor to help me deal with my experience of being put in a body cast with I was 1 year of age. I will stick with science okay? But it is also why I constantly relate science with morality and democracy. It seems so simple to me to understand morals as a matter of cause and effect, that I can't understand why everyone does not instantly embrace that. We must have morality and principles. A civilization can not exist without some basic agreements.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Good choice. I also turned to philosophy. It was years before I learned of pts and my life was not good at the time. I managed with philosophy. I was really lost because I lived in a rural area without resources, nor educated people, but could find explanations of Greek gods and heroes and that was my starting place. I am so thankful I found my way out of Hades. A place we must all go to to sort out our values and meaning of life. But we should never go to Hades without the help of the gods because it is so easy to get lost in Hades. To be lost in Hades is to experience depression or even psychosis.
You know Joseph Campbell. Without shared mythology, we create our own story using our family and people familiar to us as the gods and monsters in our personal story. What a bloody mess, because then we need counseling to figure our personal myth and journey. If the counselor can't teach us coping skills and how to write better life stories, we can remain trapped in Hades and still blaming our mothers for our infantile efforts to manage our lives.
Which religion would that be? What are the important truths?
On the other hand, there is a liberal education and learning the higher-order thinking skills. That education leads to science AND good moral judgment.
Personally, I think we have two extremely important truths right now and that religion is a very serious problem right now because too many people are living a fantasy, and their fantasy could destroy life on the only planet we have. Even if there were a god ready to give us a new planet, why would give it to human beings who would destroy that one too because they refuse science?
Truth, wear a mask to save lives. Truth, stop filling the air with carbon and destroying the planet. Truth, if you have more children than you can feed, some will die. Truth, someone needs to care for the children and if you don't think that person is you, don't have children.
Oh, we do have an argument going. :lol: I have to be careful. Are others having an emotional reaction to what is being said? I am having strong feelings and thinking of such stupid things to say, that really have to pay attention and be self-aware. Thank you to all of you for sticking with a higher standard of argument and being so well mannered! In this crowd, I know being reactionary and sassy is not going to score me good points. That social pressure, like the culture of Athens, pushes me to think carefully, instead of being a jerk.
We can see historically and without question that in the US there has been little interest in philosophy except for a handful of elite youths who could go to college. We know many founding fathers were deists who did not deify Jesus. We one of them, Thomas Jefferson, edited the Bible so it is compatible with science. And studying old textbooks, reveals a reliance on Christianity as God is often mentioned, but because the US has so many different understandings of the Bible, education avoid religion other than mentioning God, and preventing education of evolution or anything that might offend a Christian, and this includes preventing doctors from telling women about birth control.
We do not think of Dick and Jane readers as religious books, They exemplify the White heaven of the single-unit family order, where Dad works and Mom stays home to raise the children and do not object to this, except for racism, a fantasy the excludes others, taking women for granted and denying that economic freedom. The man is the head of the household and until recently we did not question that, nor did we question restricting what women could do. And the book 1984 book by Sally D. Reed "NEA: Progranda Front of the Radical Left", and the 2012 Texas Republic agenda demonstrate the slipping Christian control of education. Like when Christians had unquestioned control of education, that never got our attention, but their fight for control now gets our attention, and notice how political that is! Notice how bad our political situation is. Our democracy may not survive this Christian Right president and the Christian left one who was elected.
It is interesting to hear about your own experience of feeling possessed at one stage on your life, although I am sure that it must have been for you. I have seen the extremes of psychosis in friends' illnesses and in my work.
Apart from my friends from school who became ill mentally, I also had two friends I knew at college who became unwell and committed suicide, and both had struggled desperately with mental health problems, with an underlying flavour. One was despairing about his inability to live up to St. Paul's teachings and the other had not been brought up as religious at all, but still thought God was communicating with him.
Although I had worried about religion and puzzled over the passage in the Bible over the unpardonable sin in the Bible at age 13, it was really as a result of my friends committing suicide that I began questioning religion so much. When I began university I was still going to church and by the end I was experimenting with drugs, trying to make sense of everything. But I don't want to get too carried away talking about my own life on this site because I am trying to make the point that it was seeing destructive religious belief can be, resulting in mental illness and despair that really led me to question the foundations of my own thinking.
The main thing that I would say is that religious questions are a key factor at the heart of issues relating to mental illness. I was once advised by a college tutor that in mental health care, nursing staff should never get into any discussion about religion or politics.
Obviously, it is an extremely sensitive area and I would not recommend staff self disclosing personal beliefs but I do think that mental health professionals need to listen to patients' struggles, rather than dismiss them. It is not very helpful if nurses and psychiatrists simply ignore the struggles over beliefs and philosophical questions and simply offer medication.
I do wonder if we are moving culturally into a time of mass psychosis. I do believe that Covid_19 is real but think that all the rules and regulations and confusion could be making it worse rather than better. It is leading to a lot of extreme anger and fear.
I certainly wear a mask, although I find it gets in makes me unable to see properly because it makes my glasses steam up. I am not entirely convinced that it is as much protection in terms of stopping the spread of viral germs as some choose to believe. Sometimes I think that people wear a mask as a ritual and a means of telling themselves that they are stopping spreading the virus.
In the mess we are in I am not sure if the religious or the scientists can help us. I have a religious friend who believes that it is the end of the world. I like to hope that is a time in which people have to think critically , and in doing so that people will have to be more consciously aware of ethical issues and the wider picture of human life and the future.
I was interested that you explored the area of theosophy. I have read some of the writings of Rudolf Steiner as well as some of the writers who formed the theosophy movement.
Have you come across Benjamin Creme? I have read several books by him and attended some workshops in transmission medication, which was the meditation founded by him. I found the transmission meditation to be the most helpful form of meditation personally, but some of his ideas are rather far fetched. In particular, for years and years he had believed that the Maitreya was living in East London waiting to emerge.
It is really since getting into the ideas of Creme that I try not to get carried away with the extremes of the esoteric, and touch base with science. In this respect, I find the systems view of life, advocated by Fritjof Capra to be extremely helpful as it is holistic and a good basis for drawing upon a variety of other, divergent perspectives.
When my exploration found that Theosophy was mostly Sophistry, I abandoned that path, and went-on to explore more fruitful concepts. Blavatsky & Steiner were very convincing to those who were Mystically inclined. But I'm more Practically inclined --- more like an engineer than an artist. :cool:
Sophistry (Rhetoric) : [i]"Sophists did, however, have one important thing in common: whatever else they did or did not claim to know, they characteristically had a great understanding of what words would entertain or impress or persuade an audience."
The works of Plato and Aristotle have had much influence on the modern view of the "sophist" as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning.[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist
Note -- I view the 20th century "linguistic turn" of philosophy as mostly a return to Sophistry, wherein confusing word-play is used to obfuscate rather than to illuminate; to sound smart, rather than to be wise.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes. Capra's synthesis of Western Science and Eastern Philosophy was more suitable to my taste. I've read several of his books. He may be considered fringey by some of his peers, but his ideas are more practical than most mystical notions. My personal worldview is intended to be a "Systems View" of life :smile:
I definitely feel that the linguistic approach of twentieth century philosophy was rather shallow. I have mixed feelings about postmodernism. In the way they look behind surfaces, but sometimes they seem to just deconstruct and lose sight of the original questions.
I like systems approaches, but also like to look out for new angles and insights because I refuse to believe that philosophy has reached its end, and that would make everything seem like it is the end of the world.
I believe that all religions attempt to culture an attitude of self-honesty. Whether they have an efficient method, or are successful, is another thing.
Quoting Athena
"Good moral judgement" is insufficient for good moral actions. We all know that an individual might judge an action as wrong, yet still go through with it. This is why we need more than just to be educated in good moral principles, because such education does not necessitate good behaviour. That's what Socrates and Plato demonstrated in their refutation of the sophists who claimed to teach virtue for large sums of money.
Quoting Athena
I think the fantasy is the idea that science can give us morality. Sure, science might show us a lot of things which are wrong, and in many cases, it can even tell us what we ought to do, but it doesn't actually inspire us to do it.
Quoting Athena
This is a good example. We all know that we ought to stop filling the air with carbon dioxide, but only a small portion of the people are actually doing anything significant to that end. How can a person honestly say "I ought not drive my car everyday", yet continue to drive the car everyday. Where is the self-honesty here?
I just learned that there is such a thing as a Logotherapist. Maybe that would be a job opportunity for someone philosophically inclined. I don't know anything about its efficacy, but its emphasis on finding meaning in life, sounds like a novel approach to depression and ennui. :smile:
Logotherapist : Logotherapy was developed by neurologist and psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, on a concept based on the premise that the primary motivational force of an individual is to find a meaning in life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logotherapy
https://themeaningseeker.org/logotherapy-training/
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I would regard that decision as a pragmatic decision. The morality might have caused some doubt but ultimately that took second place. I’m not sure where I’d slot pragmatic thought.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
An odd sort of reasoning it might be but it’s still reasoning and you can’t go against what are logical inferences otherwise it’s unreasonable to claim so.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is probably true. They are culturally ingrained. But as I hoped I suggested they are all in their own way about addressing the world and our place in it. The fact that philosophy and science might have “proved” God doesn’t exist doesn’t make it so. Each is a way of conceiving the world. Each seems to lose ground to another way of perceiving things. Science is under a degree of challenge these days because it doesn’t seem to be satisfying people and their concerns and in one sense they regard science as the problem. Climate Change is not cause by religion or philosophy.
But we very often do go against reason and logical inference, it's in our nature to do just that. That's the point I made in my post above, with '"Good moral judgement' is insufficient for good moral actions." We often know "I ought not do this", yet do it anyway. We don't necessarily act according to our logical inferences. It's best known as hypocrisy.
Quoting Brett
Here you actually demonstrate an instance of going against logic, being illogical or irrational. If you believe that philosophy and science have proven that God does not exist, then you'd be going against logical inferences to still believe in God. See, logic does not have the power to make us believe any particular logical inference, nor does it have the power to make us act in the way that we see as the reasonable or logical way.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No it doesn’t have the power to make us believe any logical inference or act in the way we see as reasonable. But if we do against that logical inference then we are, as you say, being illogical or irrational. Which is what you said about proving God does not exist being irrational, therefore breaking the structure of reason.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, if someone themselves is convinced that logically God does not exist then your argument is correct.
But I’m saying though they might have proved that God doesn’t exist doesn’t make it so for me, so I would not be part of your thoughts on going against logic.
I hope I’ve explaining this well enough.
If you say that they "proved God doesn't exist", then you accept their logic. And to believe otherwise would therefore be illogical. You didn't say that they attempted to prove that God doesn't exist, or that they failed to prove God doesn't exist, you said that they did prove it.
No I don’t accept their logic because I don’t believe they proved God did not exist. I’m saying it’s an assumption on their part that they’ve proven this.
Edit: which is not to say I would not be irrational in other circumstances.
But you still don’t think I’m correct in thinking that philosophy is structured on reason and that to go off the rails is irrational and therefore to be discarded as being of no use except to put us back on track?
OK, that clarifies that, because the way you had said it implied that you believed they had proven it.
Quoting Brett
Well it depends on what you mean by "reason". If you allow that reason is other than structured formal logic, like mathematics and deduction, then we find that personal, idiosyncratic forms of logic like different types of abduction are still reasonable. Then a person's own form of idiosyncratic logic might bring one to conclusions inconsistent with conventional conclusions of science or religion, etc.. You might describe the person as "off the rails", but that person is still following some idiosyncratic form of logic and so can't be said to be irrational. Furthermore, it is possible that the reason why the person's conclusions are inconsistent with conventional conclusions is that the conventional conclusions are actually "off the rails". Therefore that person who uses some idiosyncratic form of abduction, who appears to be "off the rails", might really be the one required to put us back on track.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
But isn’t that my point. We still have to go back on track.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That’s possible. But it still seems to me that if conventional conclusions are off the rails then something has gone wrong, that being the reasoning.
I imagine it’s possible with someone with schizophrenia to apply their reason to their problems, and it would make sense to them, one step leading logically to the next, but it’s based on irrationality, so it could no longer be called reason.
I as trying to think of some way of demonstrating how religion, philosophy and science are equal to each other in addressing the world.
Imagine a soldier in the WW1. He’s trapped in a bomb crater alone. He has a gun that he defends himself with, he can kill the opposing soldiers as they approach. He feel his rifle and ammunition will save him. Night comes. The bombing continues. He begins to pray to God, he pleads, cries and begs for intervention. Morning comes. He’s alive. He hears the enemy soldiers. He thinks about and decides that surrender is better than firing. He’d rather be a prisoner than be dead.
The point though, is on what basis would you deem it irrational? You cannot judge it as irrational relative to the conventional logic, because the conventional logic might really be the one that's off the rails. Therefore we must assume something else, God's logic or something like that, and say that it could be judged relative to God's logic, which would validate the conclusion that the person's logic might be irrational.
Quoting Brett
I don't think we can say that they are equal. Some will value one more than the other. And, since one human convention may be incompatible with another, and the only way to assume that there is a real solution is an appeal to God, then religion which recognizes this must be higher than the others.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, that’s fair enough. What I meant was they have all served us over time, and each one relevant to what we understand at the time.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
In a way this, “God’s logic or something like that”, relates to my OP on “God and truth”.
If someone believed in the existence of God then they had a Truth to their life. Otherwise why would you believe it? If and when someone begins to doubt the existence of God and eventually repudiates that existence with what do they replace that Truth they had?
A couple of posts above, you brought in the term schizophrenia,for no apparent reason in the middle of an argument about irrationality. It just seemed a bit out of context and incongruous. There might be people on this forum who have been given this diagnosis. I am not implying that you do not understand the meaning of the term, but I still want to emphasise that the word, schizophrenia, should not be misused, in a colloquial sense, to imply a split personality.
Quoting Jack Cummins
First of all you are implying that I don’t understand the term.
Second, I did not mention it for no apparent reason, nor was it out of context and incongruous.
Third, I’d like you to quote me where I said or used it colloquially to mean a split personality.
I am sorry if you think that I misinterpreted you. I just did not understand how the idea of schizophrenia, fitted into what you were saying at all.
I have been reading some of your discussion as I am in bed, unable to sleep. It seems that in your last post, you are concerned with what happens if a person stops believing in God and how do they replace this 'lost truth'. When someone has this experience it is because the idea of God does not represent the truth to them any longer. For some, it may feel sad, but for others, it may be liberating.
Quoting Jack Cummins
You didn’t misinterpret me. You decided I needed correcting.
As you seem annoyed by my thinking you used the word schizophrenia out of context, perhaps you could clarify what you were meaning by the use of the word in the middle of a sentence about irrationality.
Perhaps you might just read my post a bit more carefully.
You said,
'I imagine it's possible with someone with schizophrenia to apply their reason to their problems, and it would make sense to them, one step leading logically to the next, but it's based on irrationality, so it could no longer be called reason.'
From my understanding, even though you say that a person 'with schizophrenia' can use reason you are suggesting it is still based on irrationality. Actually, I think that all human beings have some contradictions between reason and lack of it, so schizophrenia has no bearing on the matter and did not need to be mentioned at all.
Quoting Jack Cummins
So even though you said you misinterpreted me you’re back to correcting me. You’ll have to make up your mind.
The reason why I seem to waver in between an apparent ambiguity over whether I am misinterpreted you or not, is because I don't really follow the logic of your sentence. Whether or not that is your failure or mine, I am still puzzled about the term schizophrenia in the sentence. The reason I am getting a bit heated over the matter is because I have worked with people diagnosed with this mental health problem and see it as a sensitive issue.
Quoting Jack Cummins
You probably do see it as a sensitive issue. Who doesn’t? But what does that have to do with my post?
I have already made my point, and it is ridiculous for us to keep discussing it endlessly.
So, setting the word you used aside, and focusing back on how we all go about our individual searching for truth, do you not think that it is fair to say that we all have splits in reason and lack of it?
Quoting Jack Cummins
Obviously otherwise you wouldn’t have posted those comments about schizophrenia and my thoughts.
Quoting Athena
Can you clarify who these people might be?
Thanks for the link on logotherapy. It sounds an interesting form of therapy.
The one area of therapy where there are jobs is cognitive behavioral therapy. It is also a form of therapy which is about enabling people to think more clearly by examining the assumptions behind their beliefs. However, from what I have seen in practice it seemed to go more in the behaviourist direction and less in the cognitive one, which I found a bit disappointing.
Wouldn't there necessarily be a reason for the person to doubt and then reject "God"? Wouldn't this reason be the person's new Truth? However, the person might just become extremely doubtful and skeptical of Truth altogether. Some people argue that this type of doubt constitutes the person's new Truth, "there is no Truth". But I do not see it that way. I think it's a very naive way of viewing this situation. In reality, to have faith in Truth, and to be skeptical are two very distinct attitudes, and one cannot be reduced to a form of the other.
Therefore I would describe your example as a change in attitude, one type of attitude is replaced with another. The change might go the opposite way as well. Also, I firmly believe that a person cannot go directly from having faith in one Truth, to having faith in an incompatible Truth without going through a transition period of skepticism, having no faith. If this is true, it means that we must firmly reject one faith, by switching to an attitude of skepticism, before we are capable of accepting a new faith.
This I think, is the reason why many arguments in this forum are fruitless. Instead of sowing the seed of skepticism in the mind of a person with an opposing faith, whereby the person would be induced to doubt what one currently believes, most posters in this forum simply try to convince others that their view is the correct one. Arguing one's own perspective is ineffective toward changing the attitude of another. What is required is to change the person's attitude, to instill doubt, releasing the person from the binds of certitude toward what one believes. This is to produce an open mind on the subject.
Would you say Joseph Campbell is very helpful here? When we have a shared mythology and group identity, we have a comfortable notion of who we are and what is expected of us. But when we live in overwhelmingly large populations and do not have a shared mythology, how can we be certain of anything?
Children are often hurt in ways they do not understand when they are too young to defend against painful things that happen to them, so when a young person comes of age, the child may have self-doubts and negative feelings about him/her self and no coping skills for dealing with this. The gods and all religions give us coping skills and something to hold onto but there are two sides to everything, and stories of sin, demons, and Satan are dangerous. When I questioned if I was possessed, not only did this notion come out of religious ideas, and a well meaning Christian telling me Satan was testing me, but at the time, Satanism was popular and that hooked my imagination. What if there is truth in witchcraft and Satan and demons and ghosts and other strange things? It kind of irritates me that Christians today have a fantasy that does not include the dark side of their religion, but when it did, we had witch hurts. I would say without doubt Christianity is a key factor in mental illness. And I find the Greek mythology and their theater that presented the gods and heroes time and again, much better. Greek gods are concepts, not supernatural beings.
We need rites of passage
Your friends needed someone to help them through their rite of passage and thinking individuals who struggle need personal, private counseling, maybe a mistake. We might need a cultural awareness of what is true for all of us?
As for the effect of Covid and mass psychosis, I think you are right, but us old folks have more immunity against that psychosis. We came of age in a different time, more connected with WWII and pulling together to overcome an evil and willing to sacrifice for the good of all. And in the US thinking that group effort in wearing masks and distancing, is fascists, is for sure insanity and I hope in history Trump goes down as the worst president our nation has ever had. Sorry but he sure has not united us and we are living in fear of violence and fear of each other. Notions of science and religion are very tied into this! The US has many serious problems and people are reactionary, rather than thoughtful.
"In the mess we are in I am not sure if the religious or the scientists can help us." :heart: You are right my love, they can not. But Greek philosophy can. I stress it must be Greek philosophy because that is the philosophy essential to democracy. Replacing education for Greek philosophy with German philosophy brings us to the brink of disaster.
Bert, you are not understanding schizophrenia. If you are taking a shower and see a violent threatening person, what is the rational response? How do you reason threw your boss having an elephant's trunk?
How do you deal with your daughter wanting to avoid you because she can not cope with your behavior resulting from schizophrenia? There are different degrees of the schizophrenic experience. It may be mild and harmless such as seeing the elephant trunk on someone's face and knowing this isn't right, or it can be like a bad drug trip. Sometimes medication is enough to make it manageable and sometimes it is not but there is a cost to being medicated and for some that may be worse than hallucinating.
Jack, you are right. We should not assume the schizophrenic is working with good information. I argue with myself all the time and I think that is normal, especially when we receive conflicting information or we have one day off and a list of things we want to do and a list of things we should do, or we see that yummy chocolate cake and know we shouldn't eat it. But for a schizophrenic, the information they are working with can not always be tied to reality and their condition may isolate them adding social rejection to their problems. What if we are dealing with social rejection and can not change something about ourselves that is causing the social rejection? What is the rational way of coping with that?
Good morning love. :heart: You get my day off to a good start. :grin: I love your question about the efficiency of different religions. I think the God of Abraham religions are the most threatening because of the notion of a god having favorite people, which is connected to a notion that this god wants us to engage in wars that include us in His "power and glory". But it is not just the religion that matters. It is also how we are indoctrinated to that religion. Christians disagree with each other more than Christians and Muslims disagree. :lol: Protestants and Catholics killed each other. Sunni and Shia kill each other.
Christians and Muslims kill each other. And God's chosen people do not know God's truth and have been persecuted by both Christians and Muslims. :lol: That is not very efficient but could make a great comedy. :lol: It was not religion that brought us to peace, but democracy.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Being virtuous requires knowledge of virtues so I would not agree with Socrates and his student, Plato, on this point. Confucius explains the need to practice those virtues until they become a habit. I do not know if the sophists explained that? I facilitated workshops for healthy living, so I know the frustration of giving people good information only for them to make excuses themselves or just ignore the information and maintain their cries of sorrows. "Logically" we can not know the right thing and do the wrong thing. It is illogical to do what will bring harm to ourselves and others.
Quoting Metaphysician
Undercover
:sweat: You are really making me work at finding the right words. :heart: I love that.
Your argument is like ordering a glass of water and then complaining that it is not what you want when it is served warm. In 1958 we stopped transmitting the culture that we had put in place for a highly moral society that can enjoy liberty without authority above the people and without social problems, and we left moral training to the church. This was a huge mistake!
We have not exactly had education for science. We have had education for technology for military and industrial purposes, and that is an amoral education.
Science can just as easily be tied to morality. Research on poverty and human problems such as schizophrenia, or prejudice, etc. is tying science and morality together. A moral is a matter of cause and effect and that is why science is very important!
It really matters how we understand democracy, liberty, and what morality has to do with both, and then what science has to do with good moral judgment and taking power away from men like Mao, Hitler, and a recent national leader who has ignored science. I wish I could think of better words to explain what science has to do with our liberty. It is a matter of how we come to know truth and what we choose to do with our knowledge. Making the wrong decisions will destroy the good and we do not get away with that.
Actually, I think it was easier for me to talk about religion with patients than people who had fixed views because I was able to listen and make general uncommitted comments. The people who had very set beliefs often came rather unstuck and often ended up self-disclosing but I am not really sure that they upset any patients, but they did upset me a few times by preaching to me.
I do get upset if people preach fundamentalist religious beliefs to me because I am do question life a lot. Discussions with other staff often happened on night shifts, when we were taking our breaks. The reason why they occurred was because they were in the office reading their Bibles and I was reading my philosophical books. I think they were rather astounded by some of the esoteric books which I read.
But, of course some of the staff I worked with were open minded, especially some of the psychiatrists. Perhaps that is not surprising because they had been trained in the sciences. However, I was rather surprised that some of the doctors had never heard of Carl Jung.
As far as the two friends I had who killed themselves, I don't know what happened exactly. The first one was not in London and I had not heard from him for a couple of weeks and it was only after hearing of his death that I found out that he had been admitted to hospital, but discharged the day before he threw himself out of a college window. He was only 19, and I don't know if he had been given a diagnosis.
My second friend was a few years older and had been in hospital a few times and the doctors seemed uncertain whether he should be diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar effective disorder. He frequently stopped taking his medication and even when taking it, he was often thinking God was talking to him and he had visual hallucinations a lot of the time. However, he also smoked cannabis most of the time. In the days before he killed himself, I think that he was smoking some strong skunk weed. I say this because I was not smoking it myself and I felt stoned through smoking it passively. But, I spoke to him on the phone a few hours before he also jumped out of a window, and he did not admit to any thoughts of suicide and had arranged to meet up with me the following day.
Of course, I think it is true that often the people who are thinking of suicide who are the ones who do, which makes risk assessment difficult. And of course, it is not just psychotic people who are at risk. I believe that the suicide rate and the people contacting help-lines has escalated due to the lockdowns and social restrictions. That is one of the reasons why the whole pandemic is so complicated.
Many extremely religious people are devastated by not being able to go to church, although some are open for smaller numbers. I just wish the libraries were open again and the coffee shops. I have books but usually do my reading and writing in libraries and coffee shops.
I think that Christmas is on the verge of being cancelled in London now, because there is a rather strong strain of the virus around. Personally, I am not bothered about Christmas but my mother will be extremely upset if I cannot go to her in Bedford, but I just don't know what the rule is going to be because London is just moving into the highest tier.
Let us just hope that life improves for everyone in 2021, but I think it is going to take a long time for the problems to be over, and life will be different from the way it was before. Let's just hope that it becomes better rather than worse eventually.
That ancient God is a bit weird, "jealous" for example, and angry such that He might smite you. In those times I think they were assigning to God human emotions, which it was later realized that a well-tempered person ought to control. This might be an indication of how human attitude toward different emotions evolves. Jealousy seemed like it might be considered a good trait back then, but now it is not considered to be a good emotion. In any case, human emotions were attributed to God. You might notice that Jesus rebelled against the misrepresentation of the relationship between people and God. In Christianity most the human characteristics of God are removed, except love, but we're still left with a weird relationship between Jesus and God.
Quoting Athena
Being virtuous does require knowledge, this is not what is disputed by Plato. What is disputed is the idea that knowledge is sufficient for virtue. Knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient. We will sometimes go ahead and engage in activity which we know is wrong.
Quoting Athena
Since we very clearly can go ahead and act in ways that are illogical, doing something which we know is illogical (maybe buying a lottery ticket as a simple example), I think we might find that virtue is not based in logic. Plato introduced a tripartite person. To the body/mind division he added spirit or passion as a medium between the two. Spirit, or passion, is responsible for action, later becoming known as will, and in Plato's theory the spirit can ally with the mind, to ensure that we act rationally, but also the spirit might ally with the body which would influence us to act irrationally. So in the instances when we know the right thing but do the wrong thing, the spirit, which is the cause of action, is aligned with the body rather than the mind.
Quoting Athena
This might be argued as a "huge mistake", but someone else might argue that separating church from state was an even bigger mistake. Looking back in time and pointing to what you apprehend as a mistake is probably not very productive because I think it's better to look at history as a natural progression, an evolution. Whether the process is a corruption, and the species is headed toward extinction, or the process is a generation, and the species is evolving toward something better, would be an extremely complicated and difficult judgement.
Quoting Athena
I don't see this at all. Morality is not a matter of cause and effect, it is a matter of determining good from bad, proper judgement of goals. Before we can determine the required means (cause), we need sound judgement that the desired end is actually good, not just appearing to be good. How could science actually determine what is good, rather than just being the pragmatist's means for obtaining what has already been determined as good, through the use of some other principles?
Quoting Athena
I’m not sure what you mean by this. The culture that you believe we stopped transmitting from 1958 was what, I presume, created the culture you valued up to that point. From then on it was corrupted by the church and it’s morals. Are you referring to the United States or countries in general?
Quoting Athena
In what way do you think I don’t understand schizophrenia?
Quoting Athena
Isn’t this pretty much what my post said?
Really, I was only challenging your sentence. I have just read what you wrote about the unconscious mind in the thread on whether art is creative. I was impressed by what you wrote i. I am starting to wonder if the reason the word schizophrenia crept into your sentence is because you are interested in the way in which the person who has schizophrenia has a more direct experience of the unconscious than people who rely simply upon the rational conscious mind. Do you think that is a more true picture of where you stand?
I don't think I would like that job because I do not like to be around people who prefer the Bible to philosophy. However, there have been some discussions in this forum that make me wonder why anyone would be interested in philosophy. :brow: Some people are just so technologically correct and their arguments seem to have nothing to do with living.
I think I was clinically depressed for many years? That was a long time spent in Hades and of course, I contemplated suicide. I thought I could not leave behind any who would be hurt by my suicide, so I began going through the list of people who I would have to kill and then realized if I killed these people, I would have to kill everyone who would be hurt by their deaths. And it hit me, I could not undo my life. The circle of people just got bigger and bigger. Then I decided if I could not kill myself, I would just have to do my best to make life better. However, it was not until the divorce and then children grew up and left home, that I fully broke through the depression. I was so reminded of Socrates' explanation of coming out of the cave. It seemed I rediscovered happiness, and instead of living in the shadows, I was in the sunshine and life was colorful. It was an amazing experience.
When I was depressed I saw a cartoon that was very helpful. A man was standing at a customer service booth and said, "I don't like life. Do anything better to offer?" That got me to thinking. What could be better than life? Here is where philosophy comes in right?
I was surprised that so many of the people in the jobs I was working in. There were so many staff requesting Sundays off, to the point where I think patients realised why certain staff were on or off on Sundays, because I remember a patient joking about the 'heathen team who cover the Sunday shifts.
I would say that my experience of the site is mixed. I don't really mind diverse views, but sometimes when people get into being offensive to one another, which I have seen more of on some other threads, I wonder what is going on. Mind you, I have worked in a few places where there was such hostility between people, that the whole atmosphere was completely toxic.
Yes, for me the whole problem of suicide would be the effects for others. I just imagine that people who do really kill themselves get locked into such a mindset that they lose sight of all else.I have also known many who have made suicide attempts and failed, including some who have ended up disabled permanently as a result.
I once read a fantastic book on the subject of suicide by James Hillman, called, Suicide and the Soul. Hillman speaks of the suicidal search as being one a wish to end the life one is living, and have a transformed life. He stresses that the art is for this not have to be in the concrete act of suicide itself, but the suicidal urge in itself as making way for transformation on some level in one's life.
Sorry I did not specify I was speaking specifically of the US 1958 National Defense Education Act. I was in school when it was enacted and I remember that day because it was so frightening. All the teachers in the school were acting weird and at that time we were doing diving under our desks and covering our heads, as though that would help us survive and nuclear attack. :rofl: It was a tense time and especially that day got my attention. Then a teacher finally explained the purpose of education had been changed. They were now preparing the young for a technological society with unknown values. This day set the course of life. I have collected old books about education and old grade school text for many years. My grandmother was a teacher and her generation of teachers thought they were defending democracy in the classroom.
Imagine if churches stopped focusing people on the Bible and began teaching math and science. How long would the Christianity we have today, be as it is today? We took our culture for granted and that was a huge mistake! If you are a US citizen, how many principles of democracy can you list? How would you tell the story of the transition to democracy?
The US adopted the German model of bureaucracy and the education that goes with it and is now what it defended its democracy against. I am really curious to know what the outcome of the present culture wars in the US will be. You might notice we throw the word "fascist" around, but it is our grown-up boogeyman that we really don't know much about. We have no idea what it has to do with bureaucratic order and education. To relate this to philosophy, Socrates fought the war against Sparta and Athens lost and Sparta controlled Athens for 30 years. Plato was a student of Socrates who was pretty soured by loosing the war, and Plato was Aristotle's teacher. Aristotle admired the Spartans and much later the church used the teachings of Aristotle to justify its authority. The US was a modern-day Athens with an education system based on Athens education. Germany was the modern-day Sparta when the Prussians took over the rule of Germany.
Although the US won the war with the modern-day Sparta, it imitated Germany in the most significant ways. With the institutions of Germany, the democracy we had is becoming a dying memory. Now please show me your ID and present government-approved documents before we go any further with this discussion. We can not use public transportation without government-approved ID, and the responsibility for that is shifting to the federal government. To get a passport to go to countries we entered and left with no passports, you now must have a federal ID. My grandmother's generation must be wondering if fought the world wars for nothing? Replacing the Greek and Roman philosophers with German one's has had consequences.
I think it was common for humanity to fear an angry god. It is not always the fault of humans if a god/goddess is angry but just the same we better do what we can to make the god/goddess happy because bad things happen when a god/goddess is upset. But I don't think jealousy was a common trait of gods and goddesses. Oh my goodness, the more I think on this the more interesting the subject becomes! I don't think Zeus was a jealous god but his wife Hera sure was! Another point of interest here is Hera did terrible things to female humans who Zeus was interested in, but she did not punish the whole of humanity.
Would you be interested in a more focused discussion of the gods and the evolution of this kind of thinking? Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Totally agree. I very much like Confucius' explanation of this. A woman of the Bahia faith made virtue cards that explain each virtue and then the practice of the virtue. It is clear unless we practice a virtue until it is a habit, an automatic response, we do not have the advantage of that virtue.
However, knowing a virtue and having good moral judgment are two separate things. Socrates focused
on the expansion of our consciousness and here I can see where he may have a bone to pick with the sophist. Conscience meaning coming out of knowledge. If all we know is our own experience of life, we will be too narrow-minded to have good moral judgment. Our modern education is falling way short because education for technology dropped literacy. Just knowing how to read does not make a person literate. To be literate one must read the classics and learn about life through books, developing a broader consciousness. In short, a technological education is not enough for good moral judgment. And Athens shifted its education focus on being technologically correct, just as the US did and both did so a little less than 200 years after their beginning.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I claim a moral is a matter of cause and effect and that makes good moral judgment a matter of logic. Here I will stress this is different from being virtuous. I know I should not eat the two cookies I just ate, but I do not have the strength of character to resist. So we have two things going. One is we must know burning fuels that put carbon in the air is causing a serious problem, before we have the logic to resolve the problem. Two, we must have the strength of character to make the sacrifice that must be made, or we will not do the logical thing and stop destroying our planet. However, as we gain more knowledge and suffer the consequences of our actions, that may strengthen our will to change our behavior. But if we think God is in control and what is happening is His plan, then this planet will loose most of the life on it. This is a decision to rely on the Bible, not science and it can be very pleasing because it means doing as one pleases until the very end. There is logic to relying on the Bible but some of us may think that is bad logic because it is based on ignorance- intentionally ignoring knowledge. But hey, the Bible sets us for this with the story of Adam and Eve being punished because they chose to have knowledge. As my X Christian friend warns, that knowledge might be from Satan.
I really like your last sentence! :cheer: what a yummy thing to contemplate! What is the spirit of the Christian who ignores knowledge, and the spirit of the pagan who thinks that knowledge is vitally important? Also, what is the source of spirit? When I felt my mother had betrayed me by lying to me about Santa Claus, she lovingly explained Santa Claus is the spirit of Christmas. The spirit of Christmas is clearly manifested by thoughts and actions.
Morale is that high spirited feeling we have when we believe we are doing the right thing. The American spirit is that high morale, and a high mortality is essential to our liberty and democracy. So what would you say is the source of spirit?
Years ago I called professionals to ask if they were hiring. It was a requirement of getting an unemployment check to inquire about jobs. One of the professionals counseled people who are suicidal and I recoiled. I asked if that is not terribly depressing? In a very enthusiastic way, he said it was not.
He explained it was his job to help people discover what they wanted so much they were willing to die for it and then help them realize a better way to get what they want.
I never got what I wanted, but I learned to live without it, and after many years of grieving, I learn how to create a new life as Athena and how to be happy. :heart:
I probably summarised Hillman's argument very badly, especially as I don't have a copy of it to quote or refer to. What I probably failed to show was that he is talking about transformation on an inner level, not in terms of outer goals. James Hillman is influenced by Jung and wrote his books on archetypal psychology and is concerned more with the inner journey.
This is in contrast to the whole way in which I have seen recovery based mental health care which is structured around clear objective goals.
That is one of the difficulties I found with cognitive behavioral therapy, which is all about achieving clear goals and misses out the on what is going on with the unconscious.
When I was writing a paper on art therapy with suicidal clients my tutor spoke of enabling people to live without hope. Both the idea of setting clear objective goals or trying to live without hope both seem extremes. Probably the process of trying to sort out our lives is the most we can do. It is good that you found happiness even though you were grieving.
I liked your reference, about a week ago, to your real snakes, because sometimes there seem to be more snakes than ladders, but I do try to hold on to a sense of humour. That was especially important when working in mental health care.
The god of the Old Testament is definitely described as jealous on a number of occasions. That's why we wants Abraham's people, the Hebrews, to worship no other god than him. The point though, was the question of why they would portray God as having human characteristics like anger and jealousy which are not seen as really good traits. Is it the case that these were seen as good traits back then? More likely it is the case that they wanted to portray God in a way that would make people fear and obey Him.
But then with the New Testament and Christianity, God is portrayed as loving and caring, supremely good. I think that this demonstrates an evolution in the way that human beings view morality and ethics. At first it was thought that the way to make people behave is to threaten them with punishment, and strike fear into their hearts. Then it was learned that the better way is to forgive, love, and care for people. And we can see that they went from the ten commandments of "thou shalt not..." to the single golden rule of what to do, love your neighbour. I think it's far more effective to encourage cooperation and morality through kindness than it is to try and force morality through threats of punishment.
Quoting Athena
What did you have in mind, a new thread? If so, I'd participate.
Quoting Athena
i really cannot see what you mean when you say morality is a matter of cause and effect.
Quoting Athena
This is an example of fate, determinism, which is not an example of believing in God, rather it's the contrary. A religious person cannot look at the effects of the actions of atheists as God's plan.
Quoting Athena
Really, I think spirit is inherent within all living things as the source of living action, vitality. But it needs to be cultured, directed, otherwise it will go in any random way. I believe there are two features to guidance. One is to stop the inclination toward action, and this is will power. In conscious human actions It goes against the spirit, preventing rashness and ill-tempered actions, encouraging prudence. The other is knowledge and this allows that the spirit which has been brought under control through will power might be pointed in the right direction.
Quoting Jack Cummins
It’s a interesting subject in relation to the unconscious mind, but it seems a bit off topic.
I think that the subject of the unconscious mind and schizophrenia are relevant to the current discussion. That is because when we consider the nature of knowledge as a basis for truth it is questionable where this knowledge comes from or the variety of sources. Many philosophers have spoken of the role of reason and of empirical evidence. However, there is also the whole means of intuition.
The subject of schizophrenia comes in by the way of consciousness of intuition and knowledge of truth outside of sensory experiences. While the term schizophrenia is a label and can even be challenged, it does refer to a cluster of experiences which are often difficult for the individual. In particular, the person may hear voices and have other hallucinatory experiences which do not make sense to others. Often these are of a negative nature for the person, but in some instances it is possible that the person can be seeing aspects of wisdom which others cannot see.
This is a fairly tricky area because in many cases the nature of thought, because the people experiencing them are likely to take them in a literal way. I am thinking of the symbolic language of the unconscious which can be tapped upon as a means of intuition.I am also thinking of dimensions spoken of in religious texts, such as angels as divine messengers, and demons. This relates to the subject of mythology, as discussed with Athena and the understanding of myth expressed in the writings of Joseph Campbell.
Even though I have worked with people diagnosed with schizophrenia, I have not been aware of any professionals encouraging the individuals to think in that way. That is because it be unsafe and likely to result in colluding with delusions stemming from the voices or other hallucinatory. experiences
However, I have seen individuals recovering from a psychotic episode and seeing the hallucinations retrospectively as personal mythic truths.
This is a key point which I made earlier in the thread. You say "these are of a negative nature", referring to these thoughts, or "voices". But we need to put "negative" into some context, some form of scale providing standards of better or worse, in order to validate that judgement. Commonly we would use social conventions, the norms of our culture, as the standard for such a judgement. Then "outside the norms of our culture" might stand as the basis for a judgement of "negative". However, we see as a fact, evidenced by empirical experience, the existence of genius for example, that the scale which allows for "outside the norms of our culture" extends both ways outside, to the negative and to the positive. Therefore if we judge a certain type of thinking as "outside the norms of our culture", we need to devise some other principle whereby we can distinguish negative from positive.
As soon as we are born into the world, we are taught to quell this internal force to act, and listen only to the external voices. The external voices are the voices of reason, and the internal voice must be subdued in order that we can be rational beings. "Normal" childhood development consists of suppressing the internal voice with the conscious mind receiving its information externally, and developing the alternative, the voice of reason. Before the child can even get a glimpse of what is going on, the internal voice is suppressed to the extent that the conscious, reasonable, "normal" mind does not even remember the existence of the internal voice. Consequentially "normal" people are not very intuitive. However, in some cases the internal voice is not so suppressed as it is in other cases and this allows for idiosyncrasies.
I have a basic view which is similar to yours in your second rather than first one. However, the reason I spoke of voices in a negative way is because I have seen people devastated by voices. The voices can be commanded them to kill others and many have followed these. The many detained in forensic psychiatric unit is evidence of this. Also, I have seen others extremely distressed.
My own authentic view is that the matter is not black and white at all. A lot of the psychiatrists are so quick to want to medicate at the slightest trace of an unusual idea or belief. The nurses can also be very quick to condemn anything which seems out of the norm, and this included religious and non religious staff. Often, at work I used to say things which they looked a bit puzzled about. I think if I was working in mental health care at the moment and told some of the discussions I am having on this site they would query my sanity.
I am inclined to think that a lot of what is manifesting in mental illness in our times is related to deep levels of suffering and conflict in the mass psyche of humanity. I really don't think that there are any easy solutions.I am not against psychiatric medicine but think that a deeper level of healing wisdom is also needed on many levels.
I am so excited by what you have said and a book I was told about, that I don't know where to begin. The title of the book is "The Body Keeps the Score" ( subtitle, Brain mind and body in the healing of trauma). I think we have it all wrong to believe all our thinking goes on in our heads. We should understand our bodies as part of our brains, not separate from them.
Education in Athens was more physical and atoned to how what we see and hear affects us. It was also about building character. Technology and a trade is what slaves and the landless learned, and they were not exactly freemen because they had to toil for their survival. Education for the aristocrats was about our physical experience of life. Sort of like in French schools where lunch time is considered a class in how to live, with gourmet meals, served the children as they would be served in a fine restaurant and the teacher sitting with them to guide their social experience. Get the body in the right feeling and that will manifest in a good life. What we have been doing undermines a higher society and turns it into a grimy working-class society, where abuses of the working class taken for granted.
You are young and you are thinking and learning. I am rather excited by what you might achieve.
Oh yes, a sense of humor is essential! When we stop laughing we are in serious trouble. Perhaps a lack of laughter and being too serious is an indicator of being in Hades? How does the body feel in Hades? Is there a way to change how the body feels? If the body feels secure and hopeful, will the person's mind receive this information and feed back acknowledgment of well being?
I can not handle discussing too many different things at the same time. This thread is great, and another one for discussing the gods is very desirable but should perhaps wait. And what you said of spirit is very interesting as the book "Mayan Factor" jumps to mind. I would love to participate in a thread about spirit, and perhaps that needs to wait too? I want to do it all now, but maybe that is too much?
I am so bored with discussing the God of Abraham! And your account of Him switching from a fearsome, war god to a loving and forgiving god, is missing some very important information. That transition did not happen with the writing of the new testament. It happened with the improved ability to fill our stomachs. Never has this god been so good to us as He has been since the 20th century. Advancement in farming that has ended famine in most places and advances in medicine that means most children live to adulthood and our life expectancy has doubled, has nurtured the idea that God is more loving than jealous, fearsome, and punishing. Not that long ago, people were beating the devil out of their children. In my lifetime Satanism became very popular and witchcraft is still very popular. In adolescence, we are more attracted to these superstitions than when are more mature and have a better sense of personal power. That makes the increase in our life expectancy very much a part of focusing on a loving God instead of a fearsome one and Satan. Please, we must not forget history. The history of Christianity is a history of wars, superstition, and abuse.
It is amusing that you cannot see what you mean when you say morality is a matter of cause and effect when for me it is as obvious as night and day. How can that be? How can we both be so sure of what we know and disagree?
Everything must be pleasing to mother nature because when we go against her, things go wrong. This does not make the earth quake or volcanos spew smoke and lava, but if we pollute and land and water we harm life. If we cause the extermination of animal, insect, and plant species, we unset the balance of nature. We may be destroying our planet. Moral, this behavior needs to change.
We used to read moral stories to our children and then ask, what is the moral of that story. The moral of "The Little Red Hen" is if you want to share the bread, you should share the effort of growing, harvesting, milling, and then baking the bread. The moral of "The Little Engine that Could" is he made it over the mountain because he didn't give up. The moral of "The Fox and the Grapes" is he didn't get the grapes because he gave up. You that young woman down the street who has a baby and no one to support her is you need to take steps so this does not happen to you and the child. Can you think of one moral that does not have consequences?
Well, "plan" may not be the best word to use for armageddon but the Bible does tell us that terrible things will happen and Christians accept this without taking the responsibility for it. If this is not God's plan then what is a better word we can use? We are speaking of a god who could provide us a garden of Eden and who knows what we would be like if we felt safe and secure and loved along with everyone around us? We have a God who can make miracles happen and people who passionately pray for miracles while this God may or may not answer their prayers, a God who allowed the holocaust and famines and pestilence. How loving is that? We punish abusive parents and give this god a free pass to do or not do as He pleases. That is nuts. If God is not going to resolve problems for us, perhaps we should take that responsibility and question why would a god punish us for wanting the knowledge to do that?
What gods other than the God of Abraham got personally involved with our lives?
It is ,of course, difficult for thinkers to go beyond the head. Perhaps there are many energy centres for perception, including chakras, and the Chinese idea of meridian points.
I believe our society has a tendency to streamline normalcy more than what might be necessary. So students are funneled through a narrow passageway. The problem with not giving them a wider berth is that once they are outside the straight and narrow they are labeled and then there is no incentive for the individual to go back into the confines of normalcy. This might be like being shunned, and then they will just drift further away. So we have illnesses like ADHT for example, and it's difficult to grasp how pointing out to a child that they have a mental illness like this, will affect the child, and also difficult to know if medication is good for this child in the long run.
I see a real difficulty in defining "the norm". And even once "the norm" is defined, isn't it still expected as "normal", that some people will fall outside these boundaries? Is it right to use medications in an attempt to bring people back within the boundaries? Of course if a person is violent and a threat to others, medication to calm the person is required. But in a case like ADHT isn't it more like the medication is just being used in an attempt to keep the person within the stipulated boundaries of normalcy?
Quoting Jack Cummins
I tend to think that we take "the mass psyche of humanity" for granted. We take it for granted that there is a united humanity, that there is a normal human being, and such things, when in reality these things are only created through moral effort. So when we take it for granted, we do not put in the effort required to keep the psyche healthy and together. And this is when things start to fall apart.
Quoting Athena
I still don't see what you mean by morality being a matter of cause and effect. To me, morality is foreseeing a bad thing before it occurs and preventing it, or foreseeing a good thing, and encouraging it. I suppose you could call this cause and effect, in a way. But we cannot look at bad things which have already happened, and say that this must change, because it's too late, those bad things have already happened, and cannot be changed. All we can do is look ahead toward the future and try to do what we think is right, and avoid doing what we think is wrong.
I totally agree with you about labeling and the book "The Body Keeps the Score" by Bessel Van Der Kolk, M.D. made the point by storytelling. This book is shocking to me because it makes us aware of how little we knew in 1980 about mental conditions and we were treating people with treatments that sometimes made things worse. That doesn't give me a lot of faith in what we think we know today, but I have faith that research will lead to better understanding and better treatments, and hopefully much better situations in our schools.
My great-grandson was put on mediation that turned him into a zombie and killed his interest in anything. Fortunately, that did not last too long. What we are doing in schools is insane! Does this fit in this thread? Men like Bill Gates are very influential in education and their expertise is not about being human or about culture and society. Their expertise is technology. We are preparing the young for a technological society, not a human society and this has encouraged dehumanizing education. Nature loves variety and perhaps we should too and for goodness sake encourage children to be active and physical because they will learn better if they are.
I think you totally get morals are about knowing the consequence of actions so I do not understand your argument? What you said is exactly why we should be aware that a moral is a matter of cause of effect, and no amount of prayers will change the consequence of a bad action. Going to war will have bad consequences and believing a god wants us to do that unless we have no alternative to fighting for our lives, is just wrong. It most certainly is wrong to invade and destroy a country and not feel responsible for the human suffering and destruction. Today we are becoming aware of the cost of our action in the US of slavery and destroying the Native American tribes and taking their land. We are gaining awareness of the need to care for our plant, but we are so far behind because of relying on the Bible for an understanding of morals, instead of accepting a moral is a matter of cause and effect.
I think you want to read "The Mayan Factor". It says things that are totally weird to our western thinking and it can be hard to get past that, especially when we are the only one we know who is interested in what Jose Arguelles is saying. But get this, the I Ching matrix fits perfectly in the center of the Mayan matrix and the meridian points are within the matrix.
"The Mayan Factor" has both scientific and cultural significance. It can not be read and simply believed or not because it is culturally different and requires a person to be very open-minded. If a person is not open-minded, the book gets tossed in the fireplace and used for heat. Over the years I have read little parts of it again and again, and then I ignore it because the information is just too weird, but I have to keep returning to it and also the book "A Beginners Guild to Constructing the Universe" by Michael S. Schneider.
When I find people who might be interested in these books, I think we should avoid the distraction of politics and the craziness of what is going on now to see if we can have an understanding of cosmic forces which begins with math. The mystery of pi is mind-blowing. I don't know, are any of you on board with this? :rofl: So much of what we talk about seems relatively unimportant. I Ching includes a notion of heaven and earth blending and so does "The Mayan Factor".
I do agree that it is a big problem that certain ideas are imposed on us. Personally, I think that I was lucky when I was growing up because my family and teachers did allow me to be unique.
However, I have found that in some work situations that has not been the case. I think that I am the complete opposite to ADHD because I am able to immerse myself into tasks to the point where I cannot multitask at all. Also, I am sure I am not dyslexic but I think I am dyspraxia, because I have poor coordination, and difficulties with most physical tasks except art. I found some people extremely critical of me for these differences to the point where I got sick with stress and experienced depression.
I think that stress is a source of potential mental illnesses, including psychosis and mood disorders. Sometimes it is as if we are expected to be like machines and we cannot be. Also, being able to sleep is central to being able to function and not become unwell. Also, I do believe that we need to be given expressive outlets, especially the arts. Generally, I think that we need a society in which we are not expected to be robots, and one which is tolerant and open to creative, bohemian outsiders.
Thanks for the links. I think that I have looked at, but not read fully, 'The Mayan Factor,' in a library, as I love picking up all kinds of unusual books. I miss libraries so much, and just hope that they reopen at some point next year.
I went through a period while I was a student when I used to consult the I Ching on a regular basis and I used to have others in my college room using it. I found it helpful but I haven't used it in ages and don't think I even have my copy any longer. But I can remember asking all kinds of questions, but it was sometimes hard to frame them, and interpret the moving lines. The particular hexagram which I remember most was hexagram 23, splitting apart, because I always felt a bit troubled if I got that one.
I got the idea of using the I Ching from Jung's writings as I believed he used it. I think his understanding of it was that it gives rise to synchronicities, meaningful coincidences. I find the whole notion of synchronicity for understanding the way life manifests,and the whole area of precognition experiences. Actually, I had been thinking of starting a thread about the whole area of chance, but I will wait until this one fizzled out a bit more.
But getting back to the relevance of the I Ching for this thread I would say that consulting the I Ching is a way of getting intuitive knowledge. We can perceive underlying patterns beyond the surface.
By the way, I really enjoy creating threads. Some don't work out so well but it is about experimenting. I have not seen any by you, but you may have done so before I joined the forum. You have certainly made many great contributions to others' threads.
As for synchronicity being a part of our lives, my most memorable moment is when I walked into a secondhand book store looking for an old grade school textbook thinking it would immediately explain the set of American values every child was taught. :rofl: I found them but not that day and it was not as easy to find them as I expected. Instead, I found two books that set the course of my life. One is the "Anglo-German Problem" by Sarolea and the other was a copy of the 1917 "National Education Association Conference". The National Education Association was the result of needing to mobilize for the for the first world war and it explained the purpose of education and the need to adjust the purpose of education for war. there are many different explanations through many different speakers.
Since then I have added many more books to my collection. My books on the history of education are a fascinating way to study history. And as for me starting threads, yes, I started a few but they don't get attention. No one is prepared to discuss education and what it has to do with democracy. I bring up what I want to talk about in other threads, including yours. Everything I have said about morals and democracy in your threads is an expression of my sense of life purpose. When we have powerful synchronicity experiences seems as though our lives have divine purpose.
I am glad that you are still interacting in my thread. I certainly don't want this thread to fizzle out, even if I start a new one. Unfortunately, I sometimes feel that this forum is a bit like a market, with new and brighter offers.
I did read some of the book, 'Thinking Fast and Slow,'by Kahneman, but I seem to have only downloaded part of it, but I am sure I will read it in full at some point. In the meantime, I love the title because I think that our culture, and this forum is in favour of the fast, at a risk of losing the slow. I think I am more of a slow thinker, although I definitely have my fast moments, and I do believe that this is a slow topic as it is one for contemplation.
So, even if I do start other threads I hope this one survives because I believe that it has scope for many explorations yet. I am a bit disappointed that many of the original contributors have dropped out and I do blame fast thinking and a wish for instant, smart answers. But, sometimes older threads get resuscitated or resurrected and I do wish to continue this one, even if not many are involved in the discussion.
There are different things going on here. If there are already many post, I am not going to read through all of them. The discussions move far from their original topic or maybe someone already said what I think is important or made an argument that proves my thought wrong. It is like coming into the classroom at the end of the period.
There is the fast and slow thinking, and also, our minds are fickle! We can tire of a subject quickly or get distracted by another one. Most people would rather have a fresh piece of bread than a stale one.
Then there is, do we feel ignored or valued? I am gone if I am ignored.
I think many new starts may be better than one long thread. So many topics come up and I would make different threads for each one, to keep things organized, but I get overwhelmed when I attempt too much thinking, so I have not started new ones. Slow thinking demands so much of us and it is the most rewarding. I live for those moments when what someone said seems to turn a light on in my head, causing a whole new understanding and this happens for me in your threads, many times. That can be the value of being in a long thread, but people will drop out and many will not join a long and established thread and there is that concern for organization. When thoughts wonder all over the place it is kind of like Frosty Snowman melting and time to build a new one.
An on topic comment would be, not all cultures lead to scientific and technological advancement. I think the gods of Athens were essential to their reputation of being a race of geniuses. Democracy is an imitation of the gods. Having one God is an intellectual dead end. Learning what to think, rather than how to think, is a dead end.
This is my longest thread so far, so I am pleased generally. I like to see it as organic, so it will shrink or grow of its own accord, so I will try not to force it one way. One aspect is the following of others reading suggestions, because that takes time to follow through. For example, Gnonom recommended the ideas of Hegel and if I get round to this shortly, I may contact him on this thread, or if it is later, and I am influenced strongly by Hegel, I could always start a thread on his ideas.
I have to admit that I have not read that much Greek philosophy, and really only have familiarity with the basics of Plato and Aristotle. I tend to think that I need to be aware of new, emerging ideas but that should not be about neglecting the past.
You say that, 'Having one God is an intellectual dead end.' I think that is true and I do like to be able to dip in and out of the many threads which people create, as I probably have many recurring threads in my own thoughts. Sometimes, I think that I have written a comment and been ignored and, days later I get a reply from someone who has read it and decided to respond. I actually write a lot of comments, and probably some of them are not great, but I do believe that the more we write, and take risks, the more likely we will say important ideas, and that these ideas can evolve.
Really, the whole area of relativism, religion, science and truth involves so many questions. So far, I have found that it has cleared some of my own fuzzy thoughts and the aspect which I have focusing upon is the individual, authentic search for truth as being central rather than any outright objective one. However, this belief leads me to keep an open mind for whatever emerges next on this thread, or beyond.
Thous shall not eat thy neighbor is a culturally taboo demonstrating relativism. There are cultures that embrace cannibalism. However, when we drink the wine and eat the wafer blessed by a priest we are drinking the blood and eating the body of Jesus Christ. I know in our culture today that is totally repugnant, but in the beginning of Christianity when it was a secret organization, there was concern about them having cannibalistic rituals and what else could drinking the wine and eating the bread be, but symbolically eating Jesus's body and drinking his blood? And it makes sense to do this to become one with Jesus by consuming him.
Of course we have lost the history of this ritual and the reasoning for it, but how could that reasoning be missed. Jesus became the bread and wine, following the Egyptian tradition of Isis being the bread and water. I love etymology, the study of the origin of words and meaning.
At least 5 Biblical stories are translations of Sumerian stories and I feel confident that the Sumerian stories are records of fact, but when the stories are told and retold for many generations, the facts get forgotten. The original story of Adam and Eve, tells of an Eden and a flood that destroyed a goddesses plants and she got so mad so cursed the river to die, and in reality a great and long drought followed the flood, and the river almost died- dried up. The the climate returned to normal and people returned to the valley (meaning of Adam) and the lady who makes live, was one of the goddesses in the story whose name means healing the rib. We can see how our understanding of this story could be based in fact and how much its meaning changed over many generations. The goddess decided to let the river live and man the first man and woman to help the river stay in its banks. Perhaps we would have a better relationship with our planet if we believed we were created to take care of the planet.
Your thread includes an interest in science and religion. Geologist believe they have found the 4 rivers of Eden and they found evidence of a flood in the region of these rivers, in a region that is Iran today. And etymology gives us more clues about stories that appear to be changed by the Hebrews, rewriting them to fit their notion of one God. These people may have come been followers of Amenhotep who fled when their holy city was destroyed and we know, under the leadership of Abraham they returned to their home land, but not before searching the Sumerian archives. Ur being a Sumerian city that had died but left left archives and other remains. So what are we to believe? I think we differ on what is the most believable to us. Religious folks like those who want to believe in Atlantis or that aliens are responsible for our progress, all see the facts differently, each thrilled to have proof of what they want to believe.
Right on our public broadcasting channel is presenting Christianity as one and only true religion and announces the Bible is the greatest book ever written. :rage: I wonder how many ancient books have these people made to make such a claim? I think such shows should come with a warning that they are religiously prejudiced and could be offensive to some viewers.
I think that Freud wrote about the way in which Christians are indulging in cannibalistic rituals in the idea of communion. Of course, the debate becomes even more complicated within the Church, as to how much is seen as part of symbolic ritual. I was brought up as Catholic and taught firmly, and not even meant to question, the idea that it is not symbolic and that is the literal eating of the body and blood of Christ.
Of course, we are at a strange time in history because to a large extent places of worship have been shut or only allowing small amounts of people inside churches. This must apply to all religious faiths, but what is now the case, is that within the Christian church, we are now in a position in which, to a large extent, Easter and Christmas have been cancelled and I am sure that this is the first time. I do wonder if this will have a long term effect on the future of belief, because I am inclined to think that life will be different fundamentally after the pandemic.
Perhaps religious belief, especially Christianity, is at the crossroads, and perhaps it will not be the same pillar of truth for many in the future like it has been within the history of Western civilisation.
God's truth is true for everyone, no matter what religion they are. That is science and the democratic way of determining the best reasoning.
I am not sure that we need religion or Christianity to go away completely. Perhaps the dialogue between religion and science is a good thing. If the scientists had complete monopoly on the idea of truth, the picture might be flat, leading to reason but with no room for emotion or intuition.
Regarding Christianity, we have to be aware that the difference between the historical development of Christianity is probably and the original teachings of Christ, especially those within esoteric Christianity, such as that arising in the Gnostic gospels. Also, the ideas of Buddhism, and other Eastern systems of thought offer a radical alternative to Christianity.
Paganism is also a tradition which should not be left out. I think that the whole perspective of shamanism is very important too. I have read a lot more about shamanism than Christianity. The whole lifestyle of the shaman, in vision quests, exploring the upper realms and the underworld is a direct form of seeking truth and healing.
In some ways, perhaps we, who can look to the sciences and all these many spiritual traditions are at an advantage in having many doorways to explore. There is a danger of getting lost in the maze, but , if we can find our way it gives so much scope for the pursuit of finding individual truth.
Getting lost in the maze is going to Hades to seek meaning. Facts without meaning have little value. We should not go to Hades without the help of the gods and that would make your first statement correct. However, for me those gods are concepts, and learning of them is like learning of virtues.
I believe cultures must prepare the young for adulthood and this is done with education. Right now we have amoral education for technology and left moral training to the church. That is very problematic! That justifies your fear that things can go very wrong and they are going very wrong, but this does not mean we need religion. We need a culture that raises moral awareness and prepares the young to be adults, not leaving them immature and lost as education for technology is doing. We had education for good moral judgment, until the 1958 Nation Defense Education Act and leaving moral training to the church.
Hopefully, education will improve and not simply be about religion. However, I do believe that even with the best possible education some people are going to struggle and have to find their way through the maze, because the answers to the big philosophy questions are deep, and this involves searching. But, hopefully, not getting too lost.
I do believe that I am of a disposition of not accepting anything at face value and would have struggled to search for answers independently of the ideas presented to me by parents and teachers. It involves existential suffering, but it is perhaps the purpose of my own existence, and of many others. And the processes which I am describing is probably in accordance with the idea of the shamanic journey or quest.
The some of the Greek philosophers were fanatical about education being how we experience life and about education for practical use being fine of slaves and people who must work for a living, but totally unfit for the upper class and rulers.
Apart from formal education I would say that families are the beginning of the process of learning to think, rather than just being told what to think. My parents used to talk to me a lot and encourage me to think freely. When I was at school I was aware that had discussed so much that others had not been encouraged to think about.It is surprising that my parents never thought through their religious beliefs fully, as I have done, and chose to cling on to their original beliefs.
We can not rely on parents to teach children how to think because of the fast thinking and slow thinking factor. Slow thinking requires learned thinking skills. We can pick up those skills from our parents if our parents have them, the chances a good that the parents do not have those skills, and go through reacting instead of thinking. That is why it is important for public education to teach the thinking skills and this would be learning math and how to diagram a sentence. I regret I did not understand this when I was young because it is harder to learn such things in our later years. Our brains don't accumulate new information as well. On the other hand, we are more apt to grasp the meaning and see the bigger picture in our later years. Our heads are so full we can easily have great awareness of meanings as thoughts come together, but learning math or a foreign language is very challenging.
Many of us grow up right-brain thinkers and have undeveloped left-brain skills.
I want to add a question, neglecting right brain activity with too much focus on left-brain activity might be harmful to humans?
I think that the balance between right and left brain thinking is of supreme importance. It could be that this whole area is worthy of a thread in it's own right because it involves the whole way in which we process information and think.
Thanks, I will look out for it.