Philosophy

Chat about anything your heart desires here, just be civil. Factual or scientific questions about philosophy go here (e.g. "When was Socrates born?"), and so most homework help questions belong here. Note, posts in the off-topic section will not increase new members post counts. This includes the introductions and feedback sections.
Wizard22
Posts: 56
Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Wizard22 »

Sculptor1 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 8:10 amNah.
Where is your evidence for the wonder of "previous societies" please?
And we actually do that more than ever we used to. In fact we do it so much it is a dreadful bore. How wonderful was Dame Olivier Newton John?
Temuchin was a great example to millions of Mongols; "“A man's greatest joy is crushing his enemies.”
Now we just have different standards.
There is no right and wrong here - just different.
In tribal societies, and older cultures such as East Asia, the Elders are venerated and honored, not so much in Western Civilization where "liberal values" trump and triumph over wisdom.

I agree that different societies/cultures/peoples have different Purposes, so then what is Western Civilization's purpose? What is this culture's purpose?

Sculptor1 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 8:10 amI'm not sure why you ask these silly question.
How people think of, or conceive of 'Gods', demonstrates a great deal about their mindset and "philosophical" outlook.

Sculptor1 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 8:10 amThe only case for a thing being "unnatural" is if it is a cultural idea like god; a political party; something purely artificial in the sense of a human construction.
The same is basically true for "unreal", something imaginary.

Some people can tell, some cannot. The clue is usually about human conceit. It's not hard. All you have to do is challenge all the rubbish you have had thrown into you, and have a critical eye.
Is there something in particular you are having a problem with?
Take a look at all the different ideas about what "god" is supposed to be and that should inform you that such ideas are unreal.
Take a look at the ingredients on a packet of Twinkies and ask yourself if these could have come together through nature? A Twinkie is unnatural in constitution, though all the ingredients at some point will have come from nature.
Different people have different standards of Reality, a willingness to accept some prospects as realistic/probable or not, versus unrealistic/improbable. Is God more realistic than Aliens from another planet? Possibly, but most people won't care insofar as neither affect them directly.

Using a 'highest' standard of Reality is my point. If people can't discuss the basics, and agree on them, then there can't be any high standard of Reality they would then agree upon. What is "real to me" is not necessarily to you or others. Reality is approximated, subjectively. Yet there are objective aspects of reality, which people deem "Science/Scientific/Empirical/Logical/Rational/Etc."
Wizard22
Posts: 56
Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Wizard22 »

Double-post (edited)
Sculptor1 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 8:10 amNah.
Where is your evidence for the wonder of "previous societies" please?
And we actually do that more than ever we used to. In fact we do it so much it is a dreadful bore. How wonderful was Dame Olivier Newton John?
Temuchin was a great example to millions of Mongols; "“A man's greatest joy is crushing his enemies.”
Now we just have different standards.
There is no right and wrong here - just different.
In tribal societies, and older cultures such as East Asia, the Elders are venerated and honored, not so much in Western Civilization where "liberal values" trump and triumph over wisdom.

I agree that different societies/cultures/peoples have different Purposes, so then what is Western Civilization's purpose? What is this culture's purpose?

Sculptor1 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 8:10 amI'm not sure why you ask these silly question.
How people think of, or conceive of 'Gods', demonstrates a great deal about their mindset and "philosophical" outlook.

Sculptor1 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 8:10 amThe only case for a thing being "unnatural" is if it is a cultural idea like god; a political party; something purely artificial in the sense of a human construction.
The same is basically true for "unreal", something imaginary.

Some people can tell, some cannot. The clue is usually about human conceit. It's not hard. All you have to do is challenge all the rubbish you have had thrown into you, and have a critical eye.
Is there something in particular you are having a problem with?
Take a look at all the different ideas about what "god" is supposed to be and that should inform you that such ideas are unreal.
Take a look at the ingredients on a packet of Twinkies and ask yourself if these could have come together through nature? A Twinkie is unnatural in constitution, though all the ingredients at some point will have come from nature.
Different people have different standards of Reality, a willingness to accept some prospects as realistic/probable or not, versus unrealistic/improbable. Is God more realistic than Aliens from another planet? Possibly, but most people won't care insofar as neither affect them directly.

Using a 'highest' standard of Reality is my point. If people can't discuss the basics, and agree on them, then there can't be any high standard of Reality they would then agree upon. What is "real to me" is not necessarily to you or others. Reality is approximated, subjectively. Yet there are objective aspects of reality, which people deem "Science/Scientific/Empirical/Logical/Rational/Etc."
Wizard22
Posts: 56
Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Wizard22 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 11th, 2022, 7:47 am IMO, any believer who asserts the existence of God, in the sense that a scientist would mean by "existence", is mistaken and misguided. The reality of God is a spiritual matter, not a scientific one. [Also IMO, of course.]
Why not a scientific one? Why must those that doubt the concept of 'God' exclude the idea from science? Is such a presumption necessary, or due to something else?

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 11th, 2022, 7:54 am As you have not yet clarified the meaning you intend "Objective" to carry, I have already offered the definition that you seem to be following:

Objective Reality is that which actually is, mind-independently; "Objective" means corresponding with Objective Reality.

But, from your words above, I suspect these definitions are not the ones you are using. So please tell me clearly what "Objective" means to you?

Your words seem to imply that Objectivity has nothing to do with that which actually is, and is more of a theoretical concept, revolving, as you say it does, around "Logic and Deduction"?
When people use "Objectivity", they appeal to sense or authority "higher" than oneself, as-if reality must be "agreed upon", "democratic", or through some sort of social consensus or convention. Thus, what is 'subjective' necessarily bends to individuals and societies, while what is 'objective' does not. This is why I distinguish and separate Objectivity/Subjectivity on opinion. If there is an "Objective Reality" then it cannot be based on opinions, and possibly not even "Scientific Facts". It must be something Undisputed, something so impressive that it cannot be denied by the most solipsistic/skeptical/cynical Rebel.

Objectivity is a term with a lot of nuance; I'll need more time to answer your question sufficiently.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7092
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Sculptor1 »

Wizard22 wrote: October 4th, 2022, 7:51 am
Sculptor1 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 8:10 amNah.
Where is your evidence for the wonder of "previous societies" please?
And we actually do that more than ever we used to. In fact we do it so much it is a dreadful bore. How wonderful was Dame Olivier Newton John?
Temuchin was a great example to millions of Mongols; "“A man's greatest joy is crushing his enemies.”
Now we just have different standards.
There is no right and wrong here - just different.
In tribal societies, and older cultures such as East Asia, the Elders are venerated and honored, not so much in Western Civilization where "liberal values" trump and triumph over wisdom.
That is a generalisation that no anthropologist would make without a tongue in his cheek.

I agree that different societies/cultures/peoples have different Purposes, so then what is Western Civilization's purpose? What is this culture's purpose?
"A" civilisation or "A" culture cannot have a purpose. It may have a purpose thrust upon it. Cultures can be generalised only in that they change. Failing cultures change for the worse; successful cultures change for the better.
In the 1930 many men decided to change their culture "for the better". This led the most greatest loss of life in a short number of years, and led to the ending of a particular version of that culture.

Sculptor1 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 8:10 amI'm not sure why you ask these silly question.
How people think of, or conceive of 'Gods', demonstrates a great deal about their mindset and "philosophical" outlook.

Sculptor1 wrote: August 9th, 2022, 8:10 amThe only case for a thing being "unnatural" is if it is a cultural idea like god; a political party; something purely artificial in the sense of a human construction.
The same is basically true for "unreal", something imaginary.

Some people can tell, some cannot. The clue is usually about human conceit. It's not hard. All you have to do is challenge all the rubbish you have had thrown into you, and have a critical eye.
Is there something in particular you are having a problem with?
Take a look at all the different ideas about what "god" is supposed to be and that should inform you that such ideas are unreal.
Take a look at the ingredients on a packet of Twinkies and ask yourself if these could have come together through nature? A Twinkie is unnatural in constitution, though all the ingredients at some point will have come from nature.
Different people have different standards of Reality, a willingness to accept some prospects as realistic/probable or not, versus unrealistic/improbable. Is God more realistic than Aliens from another planet? Possibly, but most people won't care insofar as neither affect them directly.

Using a 'highest' standard of Reality is my point. If people can't discuss the basics, and agree on them, then there can't be any high standard of Reality they would then agree upon. What is "real to me" is not necessarily to you or others. Reality is approximated, subjectively. Yet there are objective aspects of reality, which people deem "Science/Scientific/Empirical/Logical/Rational/Etc."
That would depend on how you define reality.
Most would have it as something upon which everyone would have to agree - by definition.

As for aliens. The mathematical likelihood of life in the universe is very high indeed. But god whatever that might be is not even definable as it is a series of different myth from a different cultural traditions.
The chance that something could fulfil the multitude of ideas which is "god" is impossible.
However, just about anything can be an alien.
THough the chance that aliens have ever visited or could ever visit earth is extremely remote.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7092
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Sculptor1 »

Wizard22 wrote: October 4th, 2022, 7:58 am.
That would depend on how you define reality.
Most would have it as something upon which everyone would have to agree - by definition.

As for aliens. The mathematical likelihood of life in the universe is very high indeed. But god whatever that might be is not even definable as it is a series of different myth from a different cultural traditions.
The chance that something could fulfil the multitude of ideas which is "god" is impossible.
However, just about anything can be an alien.
THough the chance that aliens have ever visited or could ever visit earth is extremely remote.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Philosophy

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 11th, 2022, 7:47 am IMO, any believer who asserts the existence of God, in the sense that a scientist would mean by "existence", is mistaken and misguided. The reality of God is a spiritual matter, not a scientific one. [Also IMO, of course.]
Wizard22 wrote: October 4th, 2022, 7:58 am Why not a scientific one? Why must those that doubt the concept of 'God' exclude the idea from science? Is such a presumption necessary, or due to something else?
Oh dear, I fear I have given the wrong impression. Science cannot address any aspect of God, but not because there's anything wrong with science, or with God. There is no (scientifically-acceptable) evidence for or against God's 'reality' or existence. For this reason alone, science cannot analyse anything God-related, and so it cannot logically reach any conclusion. It must wait, in true scientific fashion, for evidence to emerge. Only then could the tool we call "science" be useful for the consideration of God.


Pattern-chaser wrote: August 11th, 2022, 7:54 am As you have not yet clarified the meaning you intend "Objective" to carry, I have already offered the definition that you seem to be following:

Objective Reality is that which actually is, mind-independently; "Objective" means corresponding with Objective Reality.

But, from your words above, I suspect these definitions are not the ones you are using. So please tell me clearly what "Objective" means to you?

Your words seem to imply that Objectivity has nothing to do with that which actually is, and is more of a theoretical concept, revolving, as you say it does, around "Logic and Deduction"?
Wizard22 wrote: October 4th, 2022, 7:58 am When people use "Objectivity", they appeal to sense or authority "higher" than oneself, as-if reality must be "agreed upon", "democratic", or through some sort of social consensus or convention. Thus, what is 'subjective' necessarily bends to individuals and societies, while what is 'objective' does not. This is why I distinguish and separate Objectivity/Subjectivity on opinion. If there is an "Objective Reality" then it cannot be based on opinions, and possibly not even "Scientific Facts". It must be something Undisputed, something so impressive that it cannot be denied by the most solipsistic/skeptical/cynical Rebel.

Objectivity is a term with a lot of nuance; I'll need more time to answer your question sufficiently.
It seems you do use the definition I offered: Objective Reality is that which actually is, mind-independently; "Objective" means corresponding with Objective Reality. According to this definition, that which is Objectively True is unchallengeably so. It's a great concept, simple and easy to understand. The only problem is that no human can knowingly possess an Objective Truth, excepting only that Objective Reality exists.

We can't possess Objective knowledge because we have no direct access to that which actually is, mind-independently. And so "Objectivity" is a damaging idea, because it gives so many of us the idea that Objective Knowledge might be obtainable. It is not; it cannot be.

It is my belief — not shared by many, I suspect — that we should not use the word "objective" at all, because of the misunderstandings it engenders.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Wizard22
Posts: 56
Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Wizard22 »

Sculptor1 wrote: October 4th, 2022, 3:28 pmThat is a generalisation that no anthropologist would make without a tongue in his cheek.
Liberalism is defined by its rebellious and revolutionary nature. To be liberal, is not to conserve, hence the opposition between these political directions. Elders of societies have more experience than children and teenagers. Thus it is wise to listen to and heed the advice of elders, usually, as is the general rule throughout history. Liberalism is opposed to this, inherent within its rebellion, like teenagers who think they "know more" or better than their grand/parents.

Sculptor1 wrote: October 4th, 2022, 3:28 pm"A" civilisation or "A" culture cannot have a purpose. It may have a purpose thrust upon it. Cultures can be generalised only in that they change. Failing cultures change for the worse; successful cultures change for the better.
In the 1930 many men decided to change their culture "for the better". This led the most greatest loss of life in a short number of years, and led to the ending of a particular version of that culture.
That is simply not true. A warrior society or tribe, has a purpose to expand and conquer. A scientific society, has a purpose to discover and acquire knowledge. A religious society, has a purpose to preserve its traditions and maintain its morals. Etc.

I don't see much "everyone would have to agree" upon in the West right now. People disagree, simply out of spite, often. So reality must take this into consideration. Reality is necessarily not agreed upon, which is why it is so difficult to pin down and make sense of. There are wide varieties of conflicting authorities, never a 'Global' consensus that all humanity agrees.

Since you asked, I'd define reality as such:

1. Logically consistent within a Subject (which is neither subjective/objective)
2. Relative to majority consensus and Politics (but it doesn't mean something is true)
3. And relative to a "Highest Power", an ability to know/see/experience that is greater than oneself
4. Approximate--what people consider "Real" is what they perceive and sense directly, in the present

Therefore 'Reality' is a combination of factors, rulings, and judgments, which must account for many different opinions, authorities, sources, and methods of verifying/justifying the truth.
Wizard22
Posts: 56
Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Wizard22 »

Sculptor1 wrote: October 4th, 2022, 3:28 pmThat is a generalisation that no anthropologist would make without a tongue in his cheek.
Liberalism is defined by its rebellious and revolutionary nature. To be liberal, is not to conserve, hence the opposition between these political directions. Elders of societies have more experience than children and teenagers. Thus it is wise to listen to and heed the advice of elders, usually, as is the general rule throughout history. Liberalism is opposed to this, inherent within its rebellion, like teenagers who think they "know more" or better than their grand/parents.

Sculptor1 wrote: October 4th, 2022, 3:28 pm"A" civilisation or "A" culture cannot have a purpose. It may have a purpose thrust upon it. Cultures can be generalised only in that they change. Failing cultures change for the worse; successful cultures change for the better.
In the 1930 many men decided to change their culture "for the better". This led the most greatest loss of life in a short number of years, and led to the ending of a particular version of that culture.
That is simply not true. A warrior society or tribe, has a purpose to expand and conquer. A scientific society, has a purpose to discover and acquire knowledge. A religious society, has a purpose to preserve its traditions and maintain its morals. Etc.

Sculptor1 wrote: October 4th, 2022, 3:28 pmThat would depend on how you define reality.
Most would have it as something upon which everyone would have to agree - by definition.

As for aliens. The mathematical likelihood of life in the universe is very high indeed. But god whatever that might be is not even definable as it is a series of different myth from a different cultural traditions.
The chance that something could fulfil the multitude of ideas which is "god" is impossible.
However, just about anything can be an alien.
THough the chance that aliens have ever visited or could ever visit earth is extremely remote.
I don't see much "everyone would have to agree" upon in the West right now. People disagree, simply out of spite, often. So reality must take this into consideration. Reality is necessarily not agreed upon, which is why it is so difficult to pin down and make sense of. There are wide varieties of conflicting authorities, never a 'Global' consensus that all humanity agrees.

Since you asked, I'd define reality as such:

1. Logically consistent within a Subject (which is neither subjective/objective)
2. Relative to majority consensus and Politics (but it doesn't mean something is true)
3. And relative to a "Highest Power", an ability to know/see/experience that is greater than oneself
4. Approximate--what people consider "Real" is what they perceive and sense directly, in the present

Therefore 'Reality' is a combination of factors, rulings, and judgments, which must account for many different opinions, authorities, sources, and methods of verifying/justifying the truth.
Wizard22
Posts: 56
Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Wizard22 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: October 5th, 2022, 10:13 amOh dear, I fear I have given the wrong impression. Science cannot address any aspect of God, but not because there's anything wrong with science, or with God. There is no (scientifically-acceptable) evidence for or against God's 'reality' or existence. For this reason alone, science cannot analyse anything God-related, and so it cannot logically reach any conclusion. It must wait, in true scientific fashion, for evidence to emerge. Only then could the tool we call "science" be useful for the consideration of God.
Why do you separate God from Science, or Science from God?

How does Existence manifest, then? Is it created? Was there a "Big Bang"? Would not the creation of matter constitute "Godliness"?

Pattern-chaser wrote: October 5th, 2022, 10:13 amIt seems you do use the definition I offered: Objective Reality is that which actually is, mind-independently; "Objective" means corresponding with Objective Reality. According to this definition, that which is Objectively True is unchallengeably so. It's a great concept, simple and easy to understand. The only problem is that no human can knowingly possess an Objective Truth, excepting only that Objective Reality exists.

We can't possess Objective knowledge because we have no direct access to that which actually is, mind-independently. And so "Objectivity" is a damaging idea, because it gives so many of us the idea that Objective Knowledge might be obtainable. It is not; it cannot be.

It is my belief — not shared by many, I suspect — that we should not use the word "objective" at all, because of the misunderstandings it engenders.
I believe that we obtain 'Objective' knowledge/truth/insight indirectly, as a Derivative.

The human mind doesn't need to be Perfect, in order to function. But it does allow us to 'Evolve', or know more, or become 'better', like producing newer and more magnificent works of art or architecture, new and more captivating forms of beauty, etc. Objectivity is the "goal-itself", the manifestation of becoming "better" or "most completed". It's part of the "meaning of the journey" analogy, that the meaning is in the journey and not the destination.

Objectivity is like a Direction in life, that life moves toward. Not simply "for the better", but for the Best of all.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7092
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Sculptor1 »

Wizard22 wrote: October 7th, 2022, 3:27 am
Sculptor1 wrote: October 4th, 2022, 3:28 pmThat is a generalisation that no anthropologist would make without a tongue in his cheek.
Liberalism is defined by its rebellious and revolutionary nature. To be liberal, is not to conserve, hence the opposition between these political directions. Elders of societies have more experience than children and teenagers. Thus it is wise to listen to and heed the advice of elders, usually, as is the general rule throughout history. Liberalism is opposed to this, inherent within its rebellion, like teenagers who think they "know more" or better than their grand/parents.
"A" civilisation or "A" culture cannot have a purpose. It may have a purpose thrust upon it. Cultures can be generalised only in that they change. Failing cultures change for the worse; successful cultures change for the better.
In the 1930 many men decided to change their culture "for the better". This led the most greatest loss of life in a short number of years, and led to the ending of a particular version of that culture.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7092
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Sculptor1 »

Wizard22 wrote: October 7th, 2022, 3:29 am
Sculptor1 wrote: October 4th, 2022, 3:28 pmThat is a generalisation that no anthropologist would make without a tongue in his cheek.
Liberalism is defined by its rebellious and revolutionary nature. To be liberal, is not to conserve, hence the opposition between these political directions. Elders of societies have more experience than children and teenagers. Thus it is wise to listen to and heed the advice of elders, usually, as is the general rule throughout history. Liberalism is opposed to this, inherent within its rebellion, like teenagers who think they "know more" or better than their grand/parents.
More generalisations based on a very narrow early 21stC perspective.

Sculptor1 wrote: October 4th, 2022, 3:28 pm"A" civilisation or "A" culture cannot have a purpose. It may have a purpose thrust upon it. Cultures can be generalised only in that they change. Failing cultures change for the worse; successful cultures change for the better.
In the 1930 many men decided to change their culture "for the better". This led the most greatest loss of life in a short number of years, and led to the ending of a particular version of that culture.
That is simply not true. A warrior society or tribe, has a purpose to expand and conquer. A scientific society, has a purpose to discover and acquire knowledge. A religious society, has a purpose to preserve its traditions and maintain its morals. Etc.
I say something factual and you say it is not true.
Ho Hum.

Sculptor1 wrote: October 4th, 2022, 3:28 pmThat would depend on how you define reality.
Most would have it as something upon which everyone would have to agree - by definition.

As for aliens. The mathematical likelihood of life in the universe is very high indeed. But god whatever that might be is not even definable as it is a series of different myth from a different cultural traditions.
The chance that something could fulfil the multitude of ideas which is "god" is impossible.
However, just about anything can be an alien.
THough the chance that aliens have ever visited or could ever visit earth is extremely remote.
I don't see much "everyone would have to agree" upon in the West right now. People disagree, simply out of spite, often. So reality must take this into consideration. Reality is necessarily not agreed upon, which is why it is so difficult to pin down and make sense of. There are wide varieties of conflicting authorities, never a 'Global' consensus that all humanity agrees.

Since you asked, I'd define reality as such:

1. Logically consistent within a Subject (which is neither subjective/objective)
2. Relative to majority consensus and Politics (but it doesn't mean something is true)
3. And relative to a "Highest Power", an ability to know/see/experience that is greater than oneself
4. Approximate--what people consider "Real" is what they perceive and sense directly, in the present

Therefore 'Reality' is a combination of factors, rulings, and judgments, which must account for many different opinions, authorities, sources, and methods of verifying/justifying the truth.
I do not think we are having the same conversation
Wizard22
Posts: 56
Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Wizard22 »

Sculptor1 wrote: October 7th, 2022, 5:52 amI do not think we are having the same conversation
Do you not see the purpose of a job, that a man can find fulfillment and meaning in his life by...being a police officer or fireman, for example? And that the purpose of those jobs are obvious and inherent within them?

Secondly,

Concerning reality, isn't it obvious that what is "real" is present, and what is unreal, is the distant future or past?


I don't know why you deny that a group has a purpose; that doesn't make sense.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7092
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Sculptor1 »

Wizard22 wrote: October 7th, 2022, 6:08 am
Sculptor1 wrote: October 7th, 2022, 5:52 amI do not think we are having the same conversation
Do you not see the purpose of a job, that a man can find fulfillment and meaning in his life by...being a police officer or fireman, for example? And that the purpose of those jobs are obvious and inherent within them?

Secondly,

Concerning reality, isn't it obvious that what is "real" is present, and what is unreal, is the distant future or past?


I don't know why you deny that a group has a purpose; that doesn't make sense.
You are misrepresenting me.
No group can have " A " purpose. If people accept certain beliefs they can adopt purposes imposed in them by the elites and the powerful, such as a policeman.
But what I have been saying is that neither purposes nor groups are unitary nor unchanging.
INdividuals within the groups can also have their own purposes, these also change.
Groups are unbounded and so purposes may join or divide from others.

What is real is present does not mean what is past or to be is unreal.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Philosophy

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: October 5th, 2022, 10:13 amOh dear, I fear I have given the wrong impression. Science cannot address any aspect of God, but not because there's anything wrong with science, or with God. There is no (scientifically-acceptable) evidence for or against God's 'reality' or existence. For this reason alone, science cannot analyse anything God-related, and so it cannot logically reach any conclusion. It must wait, in true scientific fashion, for evidence to emerge. Only then could the tool we call "science" be useful for the consideration of God.
Wizard22 wrote: October 7th, 2022, 3:35 am Why do you separate God from Science, or Science from God?
You asked this before, and I thought I had answered. I do not seek to separate science and God. I merely observe that science is an inappropriate, ineffectual, and ineffective tool for investigating God.


Wizard22 wrote: October 7th, 2022, 3:35 am I believe that we obtain 'Objective' knowledge/truth/insight indirectly, as a Derivative.
There is an authority that accompanies Objectivity, the authority of being unchallengeably correct, because 'that which is' is the ultimate and only reference. If you, coincidentally, acquire a piece of Objective knowledge, you would be unable to verify its Objectivity, so you could not honestly apply the adjective "Objective" to it. Indirect access to 'that which is' conceals many pitfalls and misunderstandings that do not and cannot apply to actual Objectivity.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Wizard22
Posts: 56
Joined: July 8th, 2022, 3:14 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Wizard22 »

Sculptor1 wrote: October 7th, 2022, 7:49 amYou are misrepresenting me.
No group can have " A " purpose. If people accept certain beliefs they can adopt purposes imposed in them by the elites and the powerful, such as a policeman.
But what I have been saying is that neither purposes nor groups are unitary nor unchanging.
INdividuals within the groups can also have their own purposes, these also change.
Groups are unbounded and so purposes may join or divide from others.

What is real is present does not mean what is past or to be is unreal.
I disagree, we know what police, firemen, lawyers, politicians, and just about every job are, by their function and purpose.

The myriad of different purposes and motivations within those groups, that one man wants to become a soldier to defend his country, while another wants the paycheck, does not diminish nor negate that they both server a "higher" purpose than their own individual motivations.

To say that "to police" does not have "A purpose", doesn't make sense. The purpose of police is to enforce laws and apprehend criminals. It is not limited to this; but people know what the purpose of these jobs are.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophers' Lounge”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021