The Theology Paradox: Objectitve vs. Subjective
- EnigmaticOne
- Posts: 6
- Joined: April 3rd, 2021, 12:43 am
The Theology Paradox: Objectitve vs. Subjective
It may not necessarily mean that which is existentially beyond oneself does not exist -- and one may acknowledge that it exists and can be 'felt,' however the wise and sometimes spiritual humility lies in the surrender of one's desire or need to fully define it for others, for such lacks the need to be. Perhaps just this 'truth' can be explained and understood by verbal communication, even if what lies beyond cannot be, as long as it is acknowledged that both the source and the means of its communication are both enigmatically shrouded in subjective perception.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Theology Paradox: Objectitve vs. Subjective
We have the obvious delusion of theology which is obvious. But where is the paradox here?
We have subjective experiences claiming to know god which can be diametrically opposed. Maybe one is correct, but all are beyond verification.
You have to ask, is it worth spending efforts on claims which are as easily contradicted and never seemingly verified?
You also have to ask if any of these claims are not false, then why are these experiences shrouded in mystery? If there is a god would s/he/it only communicate with a crazy bunch of people whose claims seem delusional and do not agree with others claiming the same unverifable, non fasifyable and not in any way evident claims?
Any claims to ascend to objectivity has to be demonstrable regardless of who or where the claim is made. Stuff falls to the ground in Islam and Christendom. Any Buddhist can witness it and any Hindu can die from a falling rock. The collected term for these phenomena is gravity, about which much is known and can be repeated by anyone at any time with no fear of contradiction. Gravity has earned its place in the realm of objectivity.
No so moral, spiritual, theological or mystical "phenomena", and there is doubt if "phenomena" should even be properly used to descibe such "experiences".
But where is the paradox?
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: The Theology Paradox: Objectitve vs. Subjective
“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.” ― Albert EinsteinOne of the greatest fallacies of mankind lies in the convincing of oneself and the forced persuasion of others that they can objectively define what is by literal definition existentially beyond one subjective self, and thereby beyond one's rightful ability to define or explain.
It may not necessarily mean that which is existentially beyond oneself does not exist -- and one may acknowledge that it exists and can be 'felt,' however the wise and sometimes spiritual humility lies in the surrender of one's desire or need to fully define it for others, for such lacks the need to be. Perhaps just this 'truth' can be explained and understood by verbal communication, even if what lies beyond cannot be, as long as it is acknowledged that both the source and the means of its communication are both enigmatically shrouded in subjective perception.
It does seem like a paradox. It is the same conclusion drawn by Socrates. The Oracle said he was the wisest Man in Athens but after investigating it he experienced that he was wise by knowledge of his ignorance in the presence of those filled with partial truths defining their expertise. Yet these people are called "teachers" by their knowledge of partial truths or fragments of the whole.
Instead of teaching what we know, why not also teach what we don't know and learn how to consciously contemplate the question so we can experience why we don't know?The mysteries of faith are degraded if they are made into an object of affirmation and negation, when in reality they should be an object of contemplation. ~ Simone Weil
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The Theology Paradox: Objectitve vs. Subjective
EnigmaticOne wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 1:15 am One of the greatest fallacies of mankind lies in the convincing of oneself and the forced persuasion of others that they can objectively define what is by literal definition existentially beyond one subjective self, and thereby beyond one's rightful ability to define or explain.
It may not necessarily mean that which is existentially beyond oneself does not exist -- and one may acknowledge that it exists and can be 'felt,' however the wise and sometimes spiritual humility lies in the surrender of one's desire or need to fully define it for others, for such lacks the need to be. Perhaps just this 'truth' can be explained and understood by verbal communication, even if what lies beyond cannot be, as long as it is acknowledged that both the source and the means of its communication are both enigmatically shrouded in subjective perception.
I think you are considering our apparent need for certainty in an uncertain world, to the point where we attempt to state what actually is, when we don't actually have the knowledge to justify our claims. So we pretend, as you describe.
But, as Sculptor1 says, where is the paradox?
"Who cares, wins"
- EnigmaticOne
- Posts: 6
- Joined: April 3rd, 2021, 12:43 am
Re: The Theology Paradox: Objectitve vs. Subjective
Sculptor1:Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 7:44 am Sorry but where is the paradox?
We have the obvious delusion of theology which is obvious. But where is the paradox here?
We have subjective experiences claiming to know god which can be diametrically opposed. Maybe one is correct, but all are beyond verification.
You have to ask, is it worth spending efforts on claims which are as easily contradicted and never seemingly verified?
You also have to ask if any of these claims are not false, then why are these experiences shrouded in mystery? If there is a god would s/he/it only communicate with a crazy bunch of people whose claims seem delusional and do not agree with others claiming the same unverifable, non fasifyable and not in any way evident claims?
Any claims to ascend to objectivity has to be demonstrable regardless of who or where the claim is made. Stuff falls to the ground in Islam and Christendom. Any Buddhist can witness it and any Hindu can die from a falling rock. The collected term for these phenomena is gravity, about which much is known and can be repeated by anyone at any time with no fear of contradiction. Gravity has earned its place in the realm of objectivity.
No so moral, spiritual, theological or mystical "phenomena", and there is doubt if "phenomena" should even be properly used to descibe such "experiences".
But where is the paradox?
Thank you for replying to my post! <3
One of the [attempted] definitions of "Paradox": a statement [/idea/concept] that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true." [Keep in mind that the word "true" also has a definition, and is a very ambiguous and enigmatic concept that could be defined with many different words -- some would even say that it could not be defined with words -- but such is the topic of this post.]
(S) Statement: "We have the obvious delusion[s] of theology."
(R) My Reply: A delusion is in essence a misrepresentation or mistaken opinion of the truth (that is just one way to try to define it); and, as previously stated, "truth" [or "Truth" -- I like to distinguish between lower-case truth to refer to subjective truth and upper-case Truth to refer to the concept of an Objective Truth -- but such is just a matter of preference since they are just letters and meager mouth-sounds] ...-truth is, in itself, up to debate -- which I absolutely love to discuss with people and get their ideas on it.
S: "We have subjective experiences claiming to know god which can be diametrically opposed. Maybe one is correct, but all are beyond verification."
R: Great term! Diametrically opposed -- at opposite extremes in their views. I would completely agree that we have subjective opinions, based on our subjective experiences -- our brains process data in the form of memories in a very linear way, data hat has been proven in science to be but a fraction of the 'external' data that exists around us. [What The Bleep Do we Know -- great movie]
Q: You have to ask, is it worth spending efforts on claims which are as easily contradicted and never seemingly verified?
R: This would be completely up to the person! For me, I absolutely love exerting my [sometimes limited] mental efforts on trying to peel apart these concepts and examine them using different words and methods of perceiving them! Philosophy rocks!!
P.S. I have read your whole message and will reply to the rest of your message shortly; I am going to reply again in a separate post so not to make this a painstaking reply (sorry! -- and also because I like to spend a lot of time thinking about pieces of a reply and then move on once I have spent time thinking about them.
<3 Joshua
- EnigmaticOne
- Posts: 6
- Joined: April 3rd, 2021, 12:43 am
Re: The Theology Paradox: Objectitve vs. Subjective
S: "You also have to ask if any of these claims are not false, then why are these experiences shrouded in mystery? If there is a god would s/he/it only communicate with a crazy bunch of people whose claims seem delusional and do not agree with others claiming the same unverifable, non fasifyable and not in any way evident claims?"Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 7:44 am Sorry but where is the paradox?
We have the obvious delusion of theology which is obvious. But where is the paradox here?
We have subjective experiences claiming to know god which can be diametrically opposed. Maybe one is correct, but all are beyond verification.
You have to ask, is it worth spending efforts on claims which are as easily contradicted and never seemingly verified?
You also have to ask if any of these claims are not false, then why are these experiences shrouded in mystery? If there is a god would s/he/it only communicate with a crazy bunch of people whose claims seem delusional and do not agree with others claiming the same unverifable, non fasifyable and not in any way evident claims?
Any claims to ascend to objectivity has to be demonstrable regardless of who or where the claim is made. Stuff falls to the ground in Islam and Christendom. Any Buddhist can witness it and any Hindu can die from a falling rock. The collected term for these phenomena is gravity, about which much is known and can be repeated by anyone at any time with no fear of contradiction. Gravity has earned its place in the realm of objectivity.
No so moral, spiritual, theological or mystical "phenomena", and there is doubt if "phenomena" should even be properly used to descibe such "experiences".
But where is the paradox?
R: The way I like to think of that would be that these experiences are shrouded in mystery to allow us room for growth in the pursuit of 'knowledge' and 'truth.' It has been said before in many different ways that it is not about the goal, but the path. (My personal favorite reiteration of this is voiced by Christopher Walken (sp?) in the movie "Click" who says something like "it's nothing but corn-puffs" (with perfect delivery -- mad props lol)
S: Any claims to ascend to objectivity has to be demonstrable regardless of who or where the claim is made.
R: Unfortunately the 'demonstration' of one's claims to ascend to objectivity has, in history. caused the deaths of countless souls, and not to be taken lightly. Mind you, if someone believes they may have found objective truth, it remains harmless if they do not try to force it on other people in the form of evangelistic preaching.
S: Stuff falls to the ground in Islam and Christendom. Any Buddhist can witness it and any Hindu can die from a falling rock. The collected term for these phenomena is gravity, about which much is known and can be repeated by anyone at any time with no fear of contradiction. Gravity has earned its place in the realm of objectivity.
R: Gravity is a beautiful example of what is accepted to be objective! Perhaps though that objectivity has to be refined? In the physical world we witness around us, with our impartial sensory input which has been scientifically proven to be a fraction of the stimuli around us, we can perceive this force. You mentioned some specific religions, some of which philosophize that the physical world is an illusion -- "Maya" in Buddhism -- so from that example perspective not even the scientific laws of the physical world, like gravity, are unequivocally accepted to be "True." Descartes theorized that the only thing in philosophy that we could know for 'absolute sure' is that we exist as thinking beings -- "I think, therefore I am;" however, even that can be picked apart further if one is to attempt to define the ambiguous words 'exist,' 'existence,' or 'consciousness.' So that leads us back once again (philosophy often takes you in circles -- non-linear!! ) to the idea that perhaps we cannot agree on what is "'objective," for perhaps we are defining and speaking within restricted parameters from finite lives, linear viewpoints, and subjective standards.
P.S. Sorry it took so long to reply, was playin PUBG with my boyz <3
- Papus79
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm
Re: The Theology Paradox: Objectitve vs. Subjective
I've entertained the idea often that if you come to care what's actually 'true' - something has gone wrong with your flow in the stream of evolutionary processes, and it can be as simple as being an outlier or minority in terms of how you're neurologically configured (or having something exterior that other people take as a sign of infirmity which means you'll never get fair treatment and the lies and grifts of the mainstream culture simply won't treat you well). To that end though I'm not the slightest bit surprised when dishonesty and half-baked ideas resurface or even keep preeminence. Ambiguity is the space of the grift and the grift is needed to keep horrible things like logic or reason from really ever overruling the gene.
I think the only thing I'd say with relative confidence back the other way on this - we've had several hundred years of polarized culture wars between science and religion for supremacy in the public sphere and thus you have a lot of declared no man's land between where on any side it's deemed too close to helping the enemy camp. Those territories are at least starting to get explored, the barriers are starting to melt under the auspice that we need to understand things like consciousness better in order to understand what we'd be getting into with AI, but even as we speak we've got some pretty awful organic anti-intellectual movements showing us that there's almost never any rest from various kinds of authoritarianism trying to take the scepter for themselves and thus a lot of the really interesting forms of thinking and exploration get ignored because they aren't politically juicy or don't aid those with politically juicy narratives.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Theology Paradox: Objectitve vs. Subjective
Tut tut.EnigmaticOne wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 5:59 pmS: "You also have to ask if any of these claims are not false, then why are these experiences shrouded in mystery? If there is a god would s/he/it only communicate with a crazy bunch of people whose claims seem delusional and do not agree with others claiming the same unverifable, non fasifyable and not in any way evident claims?"Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 7:44 am Sorry but where is the paradox?
We have the obvious delusion of theology which is obvious. But where is the paradox here?
We have subjective experiences claiming to know god which can be diametrically opposed. Maybe one is correct, but all are beyond verification.
You have to ask, is it worth spending efforts on claims which are as easily contradicted and never seemingly verified?
You also have to ask if any of these claims are not false, then why are these experiences shrouded in mystery? If there is a god would s/he/it only communicate with a crazy bunch of people whose claims seem delusional and do not agree with others claiming the same unverifable, non fasifyable and not in any way evident claims?
Any claims to ascend to objectivity has to be demonstrable regardless of who or where the claim is made. Stuff falls to the ground in Islam and Christendom. Any Buddhist can witness it and any Hindu can die from a falling rock. The collected term for these phenomena is gravity, about which much is known and can be repeated by anyone at any time with no fear of contradiction. Gravity has earned its place in the realm of objectivity.
No so moral, spiritual, theological or mystical "phenomena", and there is doubt if "phenomena" should even be properly used to descibe such "experiences".
But where is the paradox?
R: The way I like to think of that would be that these experiences are shrouded in mystery to allow us room for growth in the pursuit of 'knowledge' and 'truth.' It has been said before in many different ways that it is not about the goal, but the path. (My personal favorite reiteration of this is voiced by Christopher Walken (sp?) in the movie "Click" who says something like "it's nothing but corn-puffs" (with perfect delivery -- mad props lol)
S: Any claims to ascend to objectivity has to be demonstrable regardless of who or where the claim is made.
R: Unfortunately the 'demonstration' of one's claims to ascend to objectivity has, in history. caused the deaths of countless souls, and not to be taken lightly. Mind you, if someone believes they may have found objective truth, it remains harmless if they do not try to force it on other people in the form of evangelistic preaching.
Fallacy of diverse consequences.
Even if what you say were true that would not make the search for truth a bad thing.
"Belief", is of low epistemic value, as is subjectivity.
Try jumping off a tall building!
S: Stuff falls to the ground in Islam and Christendom. Any Buddhist can witness it and any Hindu can die from a falling rock. The collected term for these phenomena is gravity, about which much is known and can be repeated by anyone at any time with no fear of contradiction. Gravity has earned its place in the realm of objectivity.
R: Gravity is a beautiful example of what is accepted to be objective! Perhaps though that objectivity has to be refined? In the physical world we witness around us, with our impartial sensory input which has been scientifically proven to be a fraction of the stimuli around us, we can perceive this force. You mentioned some specific religions, some of which philosophize that the physical world is an illusion -- "Maya" in Buddhism -- so from that example perspective not even the scientific laws of the physical world, like gravity, are unequivocally accepted to be "True."
You can believe that god will save you, and you can decide to believe that gravity does not exist.Descartes theorized that the only thing in philosophy that we could know for 'absolute sure' is that we exist as thinking beings -- "I think, therefore I am;" however, even that can be picked apart further if one is to attempt to define the ambiguous words 'exist,' 'existence,' or 'consciousness.' So that leads us back once again (philosophy often takes you in circles -- non-linear!! ) to the idea that perhaps we cannot agree on what is "'objective," for perhaps we are defining and speaking within restricted parameters from finite lives, linear viewpoints, and subjective standards.
P.S. Sorry it took so long to reply, was playin PUBG with my boyz <3
Once again, I challenge you to follow your faith and jump off a building.
- EnigmaticOne
- Posts: 6
- Joined: April 3rd, 2021, 12:43 am
Re: The Theology Paradox: Objectitve vs. Subjective
"Try jumping off a tall building!"Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 4th, 2021, 2:17 pmTut tut.EnigmaticOne wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 5:59 pmS: "You also have to ask if any of these claims are not false, then why are these experiences shrouded in mystery? If there is a god would s/he/it only communicate with a crazy bunch of people whose claims seem delusional and do not agree with others claiming the same unverifable, non fasifyable and not in any way evident claims?"Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 7:44 am Sorry but where is the paradox?
We have the obvious delusion of theology which is obvious. But where is the paradox here?
We have subjective experiences claiming to know god which can be diametrically opposed. Maybe one is correct, but all are beyond verification.
You have to ask, is it worth spending efforts on claims which are as easily contradicted and never seemingly verified?
You also have to ask if any of these claims are not false, then why are these experiences shrouded in mystery? If there is a god would s/he/it only communicate with a crazy bunch of people whose claims seem delusional and do not agree with others claiming the same unverifable, non fasifyable and not in any way evident claims?
Any claims to ascend to objectivity has to be demonstrable regardless of who or where the claim is made. Stuff falls to the ground in Islam and Christendom. Any Buddhist can witness it and any Hindu can die from a falling rock. The collected term for these phenomena is gravity, about which much is known and can be repeated by anyone at any time with no fear of contradiction. Gravity has earned its place in the realm of objectivity.
No so moral, spiritual, theological or mystical "phenomena", and there is doubt if "phenomena" should even be properly used to descibe such "experiences".
But where is the paradox?
R: The way I like to think of that would be that these experiences are shrouded in mystery to allow us room for growth in the pursuit of 'knowledge' and 'truth.' It has been said before in many different ways that it is not about the goal, but the path. (My personal favorite reiteration of this is voiced by Christopher Walken (sp?) in the movie "Click" who says something like "it's nothing but corn-puffs" (with perfect delivery -- mad props lol)
S: Any claims to ascend to objectivity has to be demonstrable regardless of who or where the claim is made.
R: Unfortunately the 'demonstration' of one's claims to ascend to objectivity has, in history. caused the deaths of countless souls, and not to be taken lightly. Mind you, if someone believes they may have found objective truth, it remains harmless if they do not try to force it on other people in the form of evangelistic preaching.
Fallacy of diverse consequences.
Even if what you say were true that would not make the search for truth a bad thing.
"Belief", is of low epistemic value, as is subjectivity.Try jumping off a tall building!
S: Stuff falls to the ground in Islam and Christendom. Any Buddhist can witness it and any Hindu can die from a falling rock. The collected term for these phenomena is gravity, about which much is known and can be repeated by anyone at any time with no fear of contradiction. Gravity has earned its place in the realm of objectivity.
R: Gravity is a beautiful example of what is accepted to be objective! Perhaps though that objectivity has to be refined? In the physical world we witness around us, with our impartial sensory input which has been scientifically proven to be a fraction of the stimuli around us, we can perceive this force. You mentioned some specific religions, some of which philosophize that the physical world is an illusion -- "Maya" in Buddhism -- so from that example perspective not even the scientific laws of the physical world, like gravity, are unequivocally accepted to be "True."You can believe that god will save you, and you can decide to believe that gravity does not exist.Descartes theorized that the only thing in philosophy that we could know for 'absolute sure' is that we exist as thinking beings -- "I think, therefore I am;" however, even that can be picked apart further if one is to attempt to define the ambiguous words 'exist,' 'existence,' or 'consciousness.' So that leads us back once again (philosophy often takes you in circles -- non-linear!! ) to the idea that perhaps we cannot agree on what is "'objective," for perhaps we are defining and speaking within restricted parameters from finite lives, linear viewpoints, and subjective standards.
P.S. Sorry it took so long to reply, was playin PUBG with my boyz <3
Once again, I challenge you to follow your faith and jump off a building.
That would confirm that the body and what I call "me" would meet an end -- however no one knows if this end is really the end! Not saying it absolutely isn't, however I'm not saying it absolutely is With recent studies on DMT some great minds are theorizing that since this chemical is produced in our brains during death and sleep, and since the brain remains electronically active for a 'small' amount of time after your body dies -- that this afterlife may be some sort of dream reality. Depending on what your opinions on time are, or if you believe it to be just a construct or exclusionary, given time relativity that period of post-carcass brain activity could be an undetermined amount of time in a dreamworld (Movie - Waking Life). Some philosophers have even given credit to the possibility that even what we call 'waking life' could be a dream in itself (yes, Inception, I know). There's that famous philosophical analogy that goes something like (I forget the exact author / words) picture yourself strapped into a chair with something hooked up to a brain in other world and it is feeding that brain all your sensory information. Everything you see is but a simulation and you are actually somewhere else or 'dreaming'' (yes, Matrix, some of the best movies are based in profound philosophical ideas).
So before my rant takes me any further, my point is this: even something as 'real' to us as gravity can be questioned; so, I was postulating that even gravity may not be able to be termed Objective/Truth in the absolute sense. That's what I was saying about Descartes and Socrates as well, it all ties together if you think about it. That's why some people share the belief of a collective consciousness / Oneness / separate meat-bag bodies being illusion. Such is but conjecture, however one could say that these are the most plausible based on what we have 'learned' about quantum mechanics and such (Entanglement) -- and yes I'm aware there is yet another paradox here that contradicts, in the sense that this basis in science can also be dubbed invalid if you acknowledge that the science may also be an 'illusion.' One could surmise that those paradoxes -- if I may use a silly analogy -- exist perhaps as a wall that we are 'meant' to hit because of the restricted subjective parameters of what we call our waking lives. No I'm not saying that's it's easy as being a fatalist, because the concept of fate and free-real are also grayed out with walled paradoxes if you philosophize them long enough! (lol)
- EnigmaticOne
- Posts: 6
- Joined: April 3rd, 2021, 12:43 am
Re: The Theology Paradox: Objectitve vs. Subjective
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The Theology Paradox: Objectitve vs. Subjective
You are a veteran of discussions such as this, and you know that this is BS. There is no requirement to demonstrate faith, or to prove beliefs (unless they are represented as fact). Your own unbelief is just as unverifiable as my belief.
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Theology Paradox: Objectitve vs. Subjective
You could always give it a try!EnigmaticOne wrote: ↑April 4th, 2021, 10:51 pm"Try jumping off a tall building!"Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 4th, 2021, 2:17 pmTut tut.EnigmaticOne wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 5:59 pmS: "You also have to ask if any of these claims are not false, then why are these experiences shrouded in mystery? If there is a god would s/he/it only communicate with a crazy bunch of people whose claims seem delusional and do not agree with others claiming the same unverifable, non fasifyable and not in any way evident claims?"Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2021, 7:44 am Sorry but where is the paradox?
We have the obvious delusion of theology which is obvious. But where is the paradox here?
We have subjective experiences claiming to know god which can be diametrically opposed. Maybe one is correct, but all are beyond verification.
You have to ask, is it worth spending efforts on claims which are as easily contradicted and never seemingly verified?
You also have to ask if any of these claims are not false, then why are these experiences shrouded in mystery? If there is a god would s/he/it only communicate with a crazy bunch of people whose claims seem delusional and do not agree with others claiming the same unverifable, non fasifyable and not in any way evident claims?
Any claims to ascend to objectivity has to be demonstrable regardless of who or where the claim is made. Stuff falls to the ground in Islam and Christendom. Any Buddhist can witness it and any Hindu can die from a falling rock. The collected term for these phenomena is gravity, about which much is known and can be repeated by anyone at any time with no fear of contradiction. Gravity has earned its place in the realm of objectivity.
No so moral, spiritual, theological or mystical "phenomena", and there is doubt if "phenomena" should even be properly used to descibe such "experiences".
But where is the paradox?
R: The way I like to think of that would be that these experiences are shrouded in mystery to allow us room for growth in the pursuit of 'knowledge' and 'truth.' It has been said before in many different ways that it is not about the goal, but the path. (My personal favorite reiteration of this is voiced by Christopher Walken (sp?) in the movie "Click" who says something like "it's nothing but corn-puffs" (with perfect delivery -- mad props lol)
S: Any claims to ascend to objectivity has to be demonstrable regardless of who or where the claim is made.
R: Unfortunately the 'demonstration' of one's claims to ascend to objectivity has, in history. caused the deaths of countless souls, and not to be taken lightly. Mind you, if someone believes they may have found objective truth, it remains harmless if they do not try to force it on other people in the form of evangelistic preaching.
Fallacy of diverse consequences.
Even if what you say were true that would not make the search for truth a bad thing.
"Belief", is of low epistemic value, as is subjectivity.Try jumping off a tall building!
S: Stuff falls to the ground in Islam and Christendom. Any Buddhist can witness it and any Hindu can die from a falling rock. The collected term for these phenomena is gravity, about which much is known and can be repeated by anyone at any time with no fear of contradiction. Gravity has earned its place in the realm of objectivity.
R: Gravity is a beautiful example of what is accepted to be objective! Perhaps though that objectivity has to be refined? In the physical world we witness around us, with our impartial sensory input which has been scientifically proven to be a fraction of the stimuli around us, we can perceive this force. You mentioned some specific religions, some of which philosophize that the physical world is an illusion -- "Maya" in Buddhism -- so from that example perspective not even the scientific laws of the physical world, like gravity, are unequivocally accepted to be "True."You can believe that god will save you, and you can decide to believe that gravity does not exist.Descartes theorized that the only thing in philosophy that we could know for 'absolute sure' is that we exist as thinking beings -- "I think, therefore I am;" however, even that can be picked apart further if one is to attempt to define the ambiguous words 'exist,' 'existence,' or 'consciousness.' So that leads us back once again (philosophy often takes you in circles -- non-linear!! ) to the idea that perhaps we cannot agree on what is "'objective," for perhaps we are defining and speaking within restricted parameters from finite lives, linear viewpoints, and subjective standards.
P.S. Sorry it took so long to reply, was playin PUBG with my boyz <3
Once again, I challenge you to follow your faith and jump off a building.
That would confirm that the body and what I call "me" would meet an end -- however no one knows if this end is really the end!
So now you want to use science?Not saying it absolutely isn't, however I'm not saying it absolutely is With recent studies on DMT some great minds are theorizing that since this chemical is produced in our brains during death and sleep, and since the brain remains electronically active for a 'small' amount of time after your body dies -- that this afterlife may be some sort of dream reality.
The truth of these things is NOT dependant on your belief or opinion.Depending on what your opinions on time are, or if you believe it to be just a construct or exclusionary, given time relativity that period of post-carcass brain activity could be an undetermined amount of time in a dreamworld (Movie - Waking Life).
Surely that is the whole point here?
That is the very essence of the difference btween objective and subjective.
Fantasy.Some philosophers have even given credit to the possibility that even what we call 'waking life' could be a dream in itself (yes, Inception, I know). There's that famous philosophical analogy that goes something like (I forget the exact author / words) picture yourself strapped into a chair with something hooked up to a brain in other world and it is feeding that brain all your sensory information. Everything you see is but a simulation and you are actually somewhere else or 'dreaming'' (yes, Matrix, some of the best movies are based in profound philosophical ideas).
Idle speculation.
Imagination.
No basis.
No evidence.
Subjective, amusing, sometimes interesting.
It cannot.
So before my rant takes me any further, my point is this: even something as 'real' to us as gravity can be questioned;
So the foregoing is a non sequitur.
You can take the tall building test any time.
If you are scared to die, just flick a pencil off a table and will it to stay in the air.
Gravity keeps the moon up, and the earth revolving the sun.
Take it or leave it, but do not expect me to entertain your "belief" that it might not be the case.
...Or nothing whatsoever you said in this entire post is worthy of reading. If everything is up for grabs then you are just an illusion too.
so, I was postulating that even gravity may not be able to be termed Objective/Truth in the absolute sense. That's what I was saying about Descartes and Socrates as well, it all ties together if you think about it. That's why some people share the belief of a collective consciousness / Oneness / separate meat-bag bodies being illusion. Such is but conjecture, however one could say that these are the most plausible based on what we have 'learned' about quantum mechanics and such (Entanglement) -- and yes I'm aware there is yet another paradox here that contradicts, in the sense that this basis in science can also be dubbed invalid if you acknowledge that the science may also be an 'illusion.' One could surmise that those paradoxes -- if I may use a silly analogy -- exist perhaps as a wall that we are 'meant' to hit because of the restricted subjective parameters of what we call our waking lives. No I'm not saying that's it's easy as being a fatalist, because the concept of fate and free-real are also grayed out with walled paradoxes if you philosophize them long enough! (lol)
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Theology Paradox: Objectitve vs. Subjective
I think it is you that have responded with BS. But I have to congratulate you for an insult and a proper ad hom in one sentence.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 5th, 2021, 6:31 amYou are a veteran of discussions such as this, and you know that this is BS. There is no requirement to demonstrate faith, or to prove beliefs (unless they are represented as fact). Your own unbelief is just as unverifiable as my belief.
I do not have to "believe" in any thing. And I disgree that gravity is not constantly verifiable.
Surely if there is any thing to challenge it, then why not take the tall building test?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The Theology Paradox: Objectitve vs. Subjective
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 5th, 2021, 6:51 amI think it is you that have responded with BS. But I have to congratulate you for an insult and a proper ad hom in one sentence.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 5th, 2021, 6:31 am You are a veteran of discussions such as this, and you know that this is BS. There is no requirement to demonstrate faith, or to prove beliefs (unless they are represented as fact). Your own unbelief is just as unverifiable as my belief.
I do not have to "believe" in any thing. And I disgree that gravity is not constantly verifiable.
Surely if there is any thing to challenge it, then why not take the tall building test?
I don't really see an ad hom, but you're right. I should've expressed myself better. I could have said "We are both veterans of discussions such as this, and we both know that this is BS." I intended no insult, but only an expression of what we both know to be true.
Your "tall building test" is an attack on the holder of beliefs that differ from yours. Attack the beliefs instead, without insult. We both know this is the best way to have a worthwhile discussion that does not devolve into name-calling and other such nonsense.
Your position is that you have something solid and worthwhile to add to the discussion, and *I* agree that you do (for what that's worth), so add it.
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Theology Paradox: Objectitve vs. Subjective
An ad hom is a remark made against a "man's" character. The comment that I was a veteran of that sort of argument immediately tries to pour scorn on my argument, not because of any valid point but because you are drawing attention to my character. This is a perfect AD HOM.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 5th, 2021, 7:07 amSculptor1 wrote: ↑April 5th, 2021, 6:51 amI think it is you that have responded with BS. But I have to congratulate you for an insult and a proper ad hom in one sentence.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 5th, 2021, 6:31 am You are a veteran of discussions such as this, and you know that this is BS. There is no requirement to demonstrate faith, or to prove beliefs (unless they are represented as fact). Your own unbelief is just as unverifiable as my belief.
I do not have to "believe" in any thing. And I disgree that gravity is not constantly verifiable.
Surely if there is any thing to challenge it, then why not take the tall building test?
I don't really see an ad hom, but you're right.
This insult is the "BS" remark.
Tutut. No, this is not about "belief". I do not need to believe in gravity to feel its effects. MY comment was completely valid since my interlocutor was using a childish solipsistic skepticism that we cannot be sure of anything at all. The tall building test is a clear demonstration that such skepticism is absurd.I should've expressed myself better. I could have said "We are both veterans of discussions such as this, and we both know that this is BS." I intended no insult, but only an expression of what we both know to be true.
Your "tall building test" is an attack on the holder of beliefs that differ from yours.
Wot insult?
Attack the beliefs instead, without insult. We both know this is the best way to have a worthwhile discussion that does not devolve into name-calling and other such nonsense.
I did already, but you tried to undercut me with an ad hom and an insult.
Your position is that you have something solid and worthwhile to add to the discussion, and *I* agree that you do (for what that's worth), so add it.
I stand by what I said, and it was completely appropriate.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023