Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Stoppelmann]

These things are foundational, so what is there to criticise?

Everything you mentioned is foundational from specific points of view. You have made your list by using your brain, your culture, your mentality, your perspective. As a consequence, everything you listed is foundational in your perspective. Nothing is foundational independently from perspectives, because it is impossible to talk about anything without being automatically conditioned by our perspectives. If you think that what you said is independent from perspectives, you are automatically trying to impose your perspective to other people. This is what turns people into dictators despite their good intentions. I know that your intentions are good, it's not your fault, it is a result produced by this way of reasoning, against your good and sincere intentions.
Once we realize that anything we conceive as foundational is actually dependent on our perspective, it is easy to see that the very concept of "foundational" is itself a limited concept, depending on perspectives.

I have yet to meet anyone who does not use their brain, is not based in a culture, or has no mentality or perspective from which they are coming.

Our physiological and psychological needs are basically similar regardless of cultural differences.

If you want to build anything, it has to have some foundation.

[Angelo Cannata]

I have yet to meet anyone who does not use their brain, is not based in a culture, or has no mentality or perspective from which they are coming.

Exactly! Well said! Now draw the consequences from this. What does this tell you? It means that nobody in this world can say or think of anything without being conditioned by their perspective, brain, culture, everything. Even I, now, while writing this post, am conditioned by my perspective. As a consequence, there is nothing that we can consider universal, objective, same for everyone. We can impose laws, rules, but this happens because societies and people need to use power in emergency situations where we, subjectively, feel that there is no time for discussions. But tbe emergency situations where there is no time for discussions cannot become the rule how to conceive our existence, our human condition.
As a consequence of what you said very well, the next thing you said is just your opinion, the same way what I am writing now is just my opinion:
[quote=Stoppelmann post_id=452174 time=1703750039
If you want to build anything, it has to have some foundation.
[/quote]
T

[Angelo Cannata]

(sorry, I sent the text before completing it)
The fact that what I am writing is my opinion as well does not open the possibility that something can be universal: this would be just a trick in reasoning that is wrong.

[Stoppelmann]

I have yet to meet anyone who does not use their brain, is not based in a culture, or has no mentality or perspective from which they are coming.

Exactly! Well said! Now draw the consequences from this. What does this tell you? It means that nobody in this world can say or think of anything without being conditioned by their perspective, brain, culture, everything. Even I, now, while writing this post, am conditioned by my perspective. As a consequence, there is nothing that we can consider universal, objective, same for everyone. We can impose laws, rules, but this happens because societies and people need to use power in emergency situations where we, subjectively, feel that there is no time for discussions. But tbe emergency situations where there is no time for discussions cannot become the rule how to conceive our existence, our human condition.
As a consequence of what you said very well, the next thing you said is just your opinion, the same way what I am writing now is just my opinion:
[quote=Stoppelmann post_id=452174 time=1703750039
If you want to build anything, it has to have some foundation.

Foundational does not mean universal ...Foundational means relating to the basis or origin of something. Some words with similar meanings are fundamental, basic, underlying, and structural.

Universal, on the contrary, means relating to or done by all people or things in the world or a particular group, applicable to all cases.

[Pattern-chaser]

God's existence... nothing to do...with...philosophy.

So, how would you define all the philosophical texts that have been written in this world about God?

I do wish people wouldn't do this. Your too-brutal editing has removed the sense of what I was saying. Look:

Your conceptions of post-modernism and metaphysics seem strange to me. God does not "exist" metaphysically, or any other way. God's existence is a matter of faith, or choice, as you observe, and nothing to do (in that sense) with metaphysics, or even philosophy. While post-modernism looks like 'realism' to me, refusing to accept as certain ... those things that are not certain.

To answer your question, I would describe them as "philosophical texts", as you have done. If you read my words, you will see that I did not say, or mean, that God's existence has nothing to do with philosophy, as you imply with your edit. To clarify: philosophy cannot prove or disprove God's existence; nothing can. Throughout history, there has been much discussion of God, and Her existence, and these discussions included philosophers, of course. Hence the texts you refer to.

[Angelo Cannata]

Foundational does not mean universal

What about adopting the lack, the impossibility, of foundations that are universally valid, objectively absolute, independent of subjectivity, as the foundation for a religion of coexistence?
It is not a contradiction: we acknoledge the lack of absolute foundations, but we still talk about foundations just because we need the word.
The “lack of foundations as a foundation” means starting with an attitude of humbleness, listening to each other, clarifying that whatever we are going to say is just a social agreement, open to be changed, revised, or even replaced with different agreements as new alternative foundations. This means no foundations once for all, but foundations that are always conceived as temporary, provisional.
I think this is quite positive and not at all empty or vague.
Once this is clarified, we can just carry on by exchanging and sharing experiences.

[Stoppelmann]

Foundational does not mean universal

What about adopting the lack, the impossibility, of foundations that are universally valid, objectively absolute, independent of subjectivity, as the foundation for a religion of coexistence?
It is not a contradiction: we acknoledge the lack of absolute foundations, but we still talk about foundations just because we need the word.
The “lack of foundations as a foundation” means starting with an attitude of humbleness, listening to each other, clarifying that whatever we are going to say is just a social agreement, open to be changed, revised, or even replaced with different agreements as new alternative foundations. This means no foundations once for all, but foundations that are always conceived as temporary, provisional.
I think this is quite positive and not at all empty or vague.
Once this is clarified, we can just carry on by exchanging and sharing experiences.

Trust is a crucial point that I am missing here, which is built upon shared values, common beliefs, and a sense of predictability or reliability in the behaviour of individuals or communities. If a religion or philosophy is founded on a lack of universally valid foundations, it would face challenges in establishing a clear basis for trust. Without a common set of principles or beliefs that are widely recognised, individuals may find it difficult to rely on a shared framework when navigating ethical, moral, or interpersonal matters.

Identifying and promoting shared values within the community is the way to establish trust. These values may emerge from a collective agreement or ongoing dialogue among members. Establishing ethical agreements or guidelines that the community collectively endorses, even if not considered universally valid, can provide a basis for trust in ethical matters. Trust is also built through practical demonstrations of reliability, consistency, and ethical behaviour by individuals and the community.

Emphasising open and respectful dialogue within the community can help build trust by allowing individuals to express their perspectives and concerns. This can create an atmosphere of understanding and cooperation. Decision-making processes that involve consensus-building mechanisms can help foster trust. When community members feel their voices are heard, and decisions are made collectively, trust can be strengthened.

It's also important to acknowledge potential challenges and criticisms. I feel that a lack of universally valid foundations could lead to relativism or nihilism, where all perspectives are considered equally valid, or nothing has inherent meaning. Developing a coherent ethical framework within this context could be challenging. Religions and philosophies often provide ethical guidelines, and defining a moral compass without relying on universally valid foundations may require careful consideration. Religions often serve as a basis for community building and shared values. Creating a religion or philosophy based on the lack of universally valid foundations would need to address how to build a sense of community and shared purpose among adherents.

[Angelo Cannata]

... shared values...

There is a lot of confusion and ambiguity in your message about two points. Let's clarify them.
1) One point is the idea that there are absolute values, that are completely independent from people, time, location. They are similar to maths, similar to 2+2=4. They just exist. People can only discover them, not create them. If people agree on them, they are not creating them, they are agreeing on something that existed already before their agreement. This way people cannot modify them, they can only abandon them, or betray them, or distort their ideas about them, but it is impossible to modify them because they are independent from anybody.

2) The other point is values that are relative, such as saying "red color is a good choice for our flag". These values are completely created by people, they do not exist before being created by people. Even if all people of the whole planet and of all times agree with it, it remains a relative value, that was created and can be changed at any time. In this case changing does not mean distortion, because that value is completely understandable dependent on what people decide, either individually or collectively.

In your post you fluctuate all the time between these two ways of conceiving values. If you are not clear about this conversation is impossible.

Here it seems that you are talking about objective values, like 2+2=4:

If a religion or philosophy is founded on a lack of universally valid foundations

A little later you become relativist:

beliefs that are widely recognised

"widely" is the opposite of "universal": "widely" means "many, but not everyone, every time, everywhere", like the chosen color of a flag; "universal" means "valid for absolutely everyone, every time, everywhere", like 2+2=4.

Here you are clearly relativist:

These values may emerge from a collective agreement or ongoing dialogue among members. Establishing ethical agreements or guidelines that the community collectively endorses, even if not considered universally valid, can provide a basis for trust in ethical matters

But here you condemn relativism:

a lack of universally valid foundations could lead to relativism or nihilism, where all perspectives are considered equally valid, or nothing has inherent meaning

.

Have you clarified with yourself if values are something absolute, like 2+2=4, or something relative, created by agreement, like "the red color is good for our flag"?

[Angelo Cannata]

Correction: delete the word "understandable"

[Stoppelmann]

... shared values...

There is a lot of confusion and ambiguity in your message about two points. Let's clarify them.
1) One point is the idea that there are absolute values, that are completely independent from people, time, location. They are similar to maths, similar to 2+2=4. They just exist. People can only discover them, not create them. If people agree on them, they are not creating them, they are agreeing on something that existed already before their agreement. This way people cannot modify them, they can only abandon them, or betray them, or distort their ideas about them, but it is impossible to modify them because they are independent from anybody.

I think that this is the problem we have. You see confusion and ambiguity because you don’t want to see the inherent dangers of what you are proposing. The basis of life is relatively obvious to anyone who is observant. If the values we propose align with the protection of life, they are foundational. If they go on to protect the community, they are structural, and if they also give the individual freedom to express themselves, they are personal. The only problem is that these values are normally achieved between two opposites which repel each other, the benign and the malignant.

Values have always been discovered and then implemented, but normally it was the implementation that was the problem. There is also a basic problem, in that those who want power are very often the people you don’t want to give it to, because their values are related to their power. Those who are prudent and wise very often have no aspirations to gain power. It is only when the wise have a wise relationship to power that we have great leaders, who ensure that those discovered values are implemented.

2) The other point is values that are relative, such as saying "red color is a good choice for our flag". These values are completely created by people, they do not exist before being created by people. Even if all people of the whole planet and of all times agree with it, it remains a relative value, that was created and can be changed at any time. In this case changing does not mean distortion, because that value is completely understandable dependent on what people decide, either individually or collectively.

In your post you fluctuate all the time between these two ways of conceiving values. If you are not clear about this conversation is impossible.

The relational values are bound by circumstance, which is why nomadic people living in a desert will probably have values that people living in cities do not have, and vice-versa. Obviously, there are other, perhaps better examples, but the common denominator would be that they protect life, community, and the individual. There have been examples of this in religions in which a differentiation is made between foundational and relational values, in which relational values can be overturned by circumstance or when they are oppressive.

One that comes to mind is the story about the pharisees complaining that Jesus and the disciples were breaking the sabbath because they were taking grain from the fields, which they deemed as work. Jesus replies that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. This is one of those common stories that oppose dogmatic thinking, which is what you are doing if you propose that values can only be understood in one way.

[Belindi]

... shared values...

There is a lot of confusion and ambiguity in your message about two points. Let's clarify them.
1) One point is the idea that there are absolute values, that are completely independent from people, time, location. They are similar to maths, similar to 2+2=4. They just exist. People can only discover them, not create them. If people agree on them, they are not creating them, they are agreeing on something that existed already before their agreement. This way people cannot modify them, they can only abandon them, or betray them, or distort their ideas about them, but it is impossible to modify them because they are independent from anybody.

I think that this is the problem we have. You see confusion and ambiguity because you don’t want to see the inherent dangers of what you are proposing. The basis of life is relatively obvious to anyone who is observant. If the values we propose align with the protection of life, they are foundational. If they go on to protect the community, they are structural, and if they also give the individual freedom to express themselves, they are personal. The only problem is that these values are normally achieved between two opposites which repel each other, the benign and the malignant.

Values have always been discovered and then implemented, but normally it was the implementation that was the problem. There is also a basic problem, in that those who want power are very often the people you don’t want to give it to, because their values are related to their power. Those who are prudent and wise very often have no aspirations to gain power. It is only when the wise have a wise relationship to power that we have great leaders, who ensure that those discovered values are implemented.

2) The other point is values that are relative, such as saying "red color is a good choice for our flag". These values are completely created by people, they do not exist before being created by people. Even if all people of the whole planet and of all times agree with it, it remains a relative value, that was created and can be changed at any time. In this case changing does not mean distortion, because that value is completely understandable dependent on what people decide, either individually or collectively.

In your post you fluctuate all the time between these two ways of conceiving values. If you are not clear about this conversation is impossible.

The relational values are bound by circumstance, which is why nomadic people living in a desert will probably have values that people living in cities do not have, and vice-versa. Obviously, there are other, perhaps better examples, but the common denominator would be that they protect life, community, and the individual. There have been examples of this in religions in which a differentiation is made between foundational and relational values, in which relational values can be overturned by circumstance or when they are oppressive.

One that comes to mind is the story about the pharisees complaining that Jesus and the disciples were breaking the sabbath because they were taking grain from the fields, which they deemed as work. Jesus replies that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. This is one of those common stories that oppose dogmatic thinking, which is what you are doing if you propose that values can only be understood in one way.

I agree with Angelo Cannata(I think)
Absolute values such as encountered in mathematics are nomic values, i.e. they are parts of what they are valuing. Mathematics is a system that is composed of finite facts/values. Another finite system ,which is not an abstract system, is the system which includes the facts of the sun rising, the sun setting, daylight, darkness, day, and night.

Ethical values are not based on any finite system, but on reason, need, and biological sympathy. Ethical values are infinite. Children at school developmentally learn to reason , recognise needs , and to develop their sense of right and wrong, whereas they discover nomic values such as mathematics and other finite systems.

[Stoppelmann]

I agree with Angelo Cannata(I think)
Absolute values such as encountered in mathematics are nomic values, i.e. they are parts of what they are valuing. Mathematics is a system that is composed of finite facts/values. Another finite system ,which is not an abstract system, is the system which includes the facts of the sun rising, the sun setting, daylight, darkness, day, and night.

I think there is no question of that, but the sun rising and setting has existential consequences that we react to by ensuring that we are safe when it is dark, for example. We always react to circumstances when we make values and do not dream it up out of boredom.

Ethical values are not based on any finite system, but on reason, need, and biological sympathy. Ethical values are infinite. Children at school developmentally learn to reason , recognise needs , and to develop their sense of right and wrong, whereas they discover nomic values such as mathematics and other finite systems.

I'm not sure that the difference between finite and infinite is helpful. I feel that you forget that reason is also a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event and that which is reasonable is based on "good sense" and is as much as is appropriate or fair, taking all into consideration. It, too, is a reaction, as most of our decisions are, and with time, out of such decisions, values arise. But these values have two components: That which is fundamental and that which is circumstantial. As such, ethical values are discovered. Ethical values have historically indicated where we come from or to what group we belong.

I am also not a friend of the assumption that religious values differ from that. When I talk about religion, I am not talking about superstition but the re-considered evaluation of the basics of life. Even when the sun was considered divine, it was because people realised that it was fundamental to life, and if it didn't shine, crops were not good, and the seasons were discovered to be essential for natural life. The natural order could tilt, causing suffering, so people considered whether they had done something to cause droughts, floods, and all sorts of catastrophes before they came to understand the real causes. These are all reactions to natural phenomena, which became more sophisticated as time passed.

Introspection, or the examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes, showed how human beings have a core being that can be discovered by meditative and contemplative practices and helps them become more attentive, which also became a part of religion. These are all things that we discover rather than invent, and come to value through experience.

[Belindi]

I agree with Angelo Cannata(I think)
Absolute values such as encountered in mathematics are nomic values, i.e. they are parts of what they are valuing. Mathematics is a system that is composed of finite facts/values. Another finite system ,which is not an abstract system, is the system which includes the facts of the sun rising, the sun setting, daylight, darkness, day, and night.

I think there is no question of that, but the sun rising and setting has existential consequences that we react to by ensuring that we are safe when it is dark, for example. We always react to circumstances when we make values and do not dream it up out of boredom.

Ethical values are not based on any finite system, but on reason, need, and biological sympathy. Ethical values are infinite. Children at school developmentally learn to reason , recognise needs , and to develop their sense of right and wrong, whereas they discover nomic values such as mathematics and other finite systems.

I'm not sure that the difference between finite and infinite is helpful. I feel that you forget that reason is also a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event and that which is reasonable is based on "good sense" and is as much as is appropriate or fair, taking all into consideration. It, too, is a reaction, as most of our decisions are, and with time, out of such decisions, values arise. But these values have two components: That which is fundamental and that which is circumstantial. As such, ethical values are discovered. Ethical values have historically indicated where we come from or to what group we belong.

I am also not a friend of the assumption that religious values differ from that. When I talk about religion, I am not talking about superstition but the re-considered evaluation of the basics of life. Even when the sun was considered divine, it was because people realised that it was fundamental to life, and if it didn't shine, crops were not good, and the seasons were discovered to be essential for natural life. The natural order could tilt, causing suffering, so people considered whether they had done something to cause droughts, floods, and all sorts of catastrophes before they came to understand the real causes. These are all reactions to natural phenomena, which became more sophisticated as time passed.

Introspection, or the examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes, showed how human beings have a core being that can be discovered by meditative and contemplative practices and helps them become more attentive, which also became a part of religion. These are all things that we discover rather than invent, and come to value through experience.

But if you believe ethical values are finite, as formal logic, nomic connections, or maths are finite systems, then you are in danger of stagnating your reason in order to cling to useless religious values or rituals and to believe in miracles.

"core being" is a fallacy. Nothing has core being . Things seem as they are because that is how children of a culture are taught to perceive them'.

[Stoppelmann]

I agree with Angelo Cannata(I think)
Absolute values such as encountered in mathematics are nomic values, i.e. they are parts of what they are valuing. Mathematics is a system that is composed of finite facts/values. Another finite system ,which is not an abstract system, is the system which includes the facts of the sun rising, the sun setting, daylight, darkness, day, and night.

I think there is no question of that, but the sun rising and setting has existential consequences that we react to by ensuring that we are safe when it is dark, for example. We always react to circumstances when we make values and do not dream it up out of boredom.

Ethical values are not based on any finite system, but on reason, need, and biological sympathy. Ethical values are infinite. Children at school developmentally learn to reason , recognise needs , and to develop their sense of right and wrong, whereas they discover nomic values such as mathematics and other finite systems.

I'm not sure that the difference between finite and infinite is helpful. I feel that you forget that reason is also a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event and that which is reasonable is based on "good sense" and is as much as is appropriate or fair, taking all into consideration. It, too, is a reaction, as most of our decisions are, and with time, out of such decisions, values arise. But these values have two components: That which is fundamental and that which is circumstantial. As such, ethical values are discovered. Ethical values have historically indicated where we come from or to what group we belong.

I am also not a friend of the assumption that religious values differ from that. When I talk about religion, I am not talking about superstition but the re-considered evaluation of the basics of life. Even when the sun was considered divine, it was because people realised that it was fundamental to life, and if it didn't shine, crops were not good, and the seasons were discovered to be essential for natural life. The natural order could tilt, causing suffering, so people considered whether they had done something to cause droughts, floods, and all sorts of catastrophes before they came to understand the real causes. These are all reactions to natural phenomena, which became more sophisticated as time passed.

Introspection, or the examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes, showed how human beings have a core being that can be discovered by meditative and contemplative practices and helps them become more attentive, which also became a part of religion. These are all things that we discover rather than invent, and come to value through experience.

But if you believe ethical values are finite, as formal logic, nomic connections, or maths are finite systems, then you are in danger of stagnating your reason in order to cling to useless religious values or rituals and to believe in miracles.

This is perhaps one of the most "curious" answers to what I have said that I have ever received I think. Not only does it manage to ignore what I have said, (in brief) that everything begins with observance, and is therefore discovered, but then goes on to associate what I have not said with other things I have not said, coming to a conclusion that has no basis.

"core being" is a fallacy. Nothing has core being . Things seem as they are because that is how children of a culture are taught to perceive them'.

The next statement I will put down to semantic differences, because what I mean by a "core being," is the silent observer, that becomes perceptible when the loudness of the periphery and the endless monologue in our minds is coped with, which in most Eastern traditions enables mindfulness and equanimity, and is also valued in Mystic and contemplative traditions of the West. Rather than use the whole range of expressions used for this phenomenon, I used the term "core being," which like other expressions is just a label. So, if you still maintain that it is a fallacy, you would have to take it up with rather a lot of people.

[Stoppelmann]

I understand that academic perspectives vary widely, and not all scholars or disciplines exhibit the same attitudes toward classical philosophy, mythology, or religion and that while some may approach these subjects with a sense of appreciation and acknowledgement of their historical significance, others may adopt a more critical or deconstructive stance. This diversity of perspectives is a natural part of academic discourse. Still, it is crucial to recognise that contemporary knowledge and society are deeply rooted in the contributions of past generations, spanning various disciplines as named above. Understanding the historical context and the foundations upon which our current understanding is built provides valuable insights.

I also understand that while it's essential to appreciate the foundations of our intellectual heritage, it's also valuable to engage in critical examination and reflection to foster intellectual growth and progress, explore alternative perspectives, or address contemporary issues. However, we need a balanced approach that combines an understanding of historical roots with a critical examination of past ideas, which can contribute to a richer and more nuanced comprehension of the present. There seem to be generational differences in the approach to the foundations of civilisation, particularly in how individuals from different age groups engage with and interpret historical, philosophical, and religious traditions. This may be down to various factors, including cultural shifts, educational experiences, and broader social changes.

We have seen how changes in educational methods and curricula over time can impact how individuals are introduced to classical philosophy, mythology, and religious traditions. Some generations may receive a more traditional education that emphasises the importance of these foundational elements. Societal attitudes toward tradition and authority can vary across generations. Some may feel a strong connection to historical roots, viewing them as essential for understanding the present. In contrast, others might be more inclined to question or even reject certain aspects of the past in favour of new perspectives.

The advent of the internet and digital communication has significantly influenced how information is accessed and shared. Younger generations who have grown up with these technologies may have different ways of engaging with and disseminating knowledge than older generations. The socio-political climate can also shape attitudes toward foundational elements of civilisation. In contrast, firsthand experiences common to past pre-technological generations, especially those directly connecting with the environment, have provided a unique and enriching perspective. As an example, Walt Whitman's "Song of the Open Road," though just about pre-technological, reflects the transcendentalist philosophy of the mid-19th century, which often emphasised the importance of direct experience with nature and the world.

Engaging with the world through activities such as walking, travelling, or immersing oneself in nature has inspired many writers, philosophers, and thinkers throughout history. This immersive approach to life allows individuals to gain insights into their surroundings, connect with the natural world, and potentially develop a deeper understanding of the past. Ancient cultures often had a more immediate and direct relationship with their environments, and their mythologies, philosophies, and religious beliefs often reflected this connection. For instance, ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle and the Stoics emphasised living in harmony with nature.

By participating in life directly, individuals can develop a holistic and embodied understanding of the world, which can transcend mere intellectual or theoretical knowledge. This experiential approach can contribute to a more profound appreciation of the interconnectedness of all things and may foster a sense of unity with both the present and the past. Whitman's celebration of the open road and the experiences it offers aligns with the notion that direct engagement with life, whether in the countryside or elsewhere, can be a powerful means of gaining insight into the human condition and the continuity of human experience across time.

I feel that many theorists lack this experience, especially those engaged in deconstructing modernity. They do not reverse the effects of modernity but take away the supporting structures without replacing them with new structures because they believe they can do without them, risking the collapse of society. Coexistence is then also at risk because survival becomes an issue once more.