Philosophy Discussion Forums

Dark Matter wrote:The reason that I posted Descartes' second argument is because people usually use it without realizing that "Cogito ergo sum" was intended to be a reminder to his readers that God is omnipresent as well as all-powerful, and that we must therefore govern ourselves and our lives with the knowledge that everyone will be called to a particular (i.e. Christian) kind of accounting for her or her actions at the end of each individual's life.

I was under the vague impression that "I think, therefore I am" was the result of a thought experiment where Descartes first imagined himself as a mind without a body, and then attempted the reverse - imagining being present physically, but without a mind - and he could not do it. So he surmised the famous dualist idea that mind and body are separate, with his presence in reality being contingent on mind - or something like that :)

Greta wrote:

Dark Matter wrote:The reason that I posted Descartes' second argument is because people usually use it without realizing that "Cogito ergo sum" was intended to be a reminder to his readers that God is omnipresent as well as all-powerful, and that we must therefore govern ourselves and our lives with the knowledge that everyone will be called to a particular (i.e. Christian) kind of accounting for her or her actions at the end of each individual's life.

I was under the vague impression that "I think, therefore I am" was the result of a thought experiment where Descartes first imagined himself as a mind without a body, and then attempted the reverse - imagining being present physically, but without a mind - and he could not do it. So he surmised the famous dualist idea that mind and body are separate, with his presence in reality being contingent on mind - or something like that

That's true, but there a lot of nuances in his ideas and various interpretations. Take, for example, "Cogito ergo sum" in the context of his second ontological argument. #2 clearly indicates that Descartes' sense of "am-ness," which depends entirely on his thinking, is inconceivable without a more perfect cause.

Being outside the context of Descartes' ontology, Renee's claim that "cogito ergo sum" has the strength of an a priori truth is self-defeating. It bears the inherent assumption that "I" is the thinker and therefore I exist. That's like saying the Bible is true because it says it's true

Dark matter wrote:

IMO, this is especially true of atheists. Is it possible for an articulate atheist to understand that the language of religion is mostly analogical? Since this understanding has been around for centuries, is there any excuse for atheists to understand with a univocal eye?

I suspect that there are many people, atheists and theists, who are unable to understand analogies as analogies and not as literal truths.

If religion is permanent need for men to find meaning in a confusing and uncertain life then religion is here to stay. What most people think an atheist is is someone who doesn't believe in God. Most people are not philosophers or theologians and most people don't ask "what is God in which some people don't believe?"

Literal theism is unreasonable and its upshots are superstition or politicisation. The popularity of monistic religions is bedevilled by the fact that monistic religions are sometimes fatalistic, and moreover their myths are foreign to Westerners and have often become New Age wooliness.

If there had been a reasonable and popular religion in America Donald Trump would not have been elected.

I was reared to respect God as good and the socialist version of Jesus as God's manifestation on Earth. Obviously Jesus has also been interpreted as not socialist at all in fact quite the opposite. The myth has proved to be too open to interpretation, and people need a religion which is not founded upon analogies, but upon practice and simple reasoning. Can reasoning ever be simple?

I'm afraid I have probs with your starting principles which need addressing first.

E) Non-being cannot produce being. This is the principle of causality. Nothing cannot cause anything since nothing does not exist, and what does not exist cannot not cause anything. Only something can produce something. Deniable of this principle also entails a contradiction.

Someone will have to break this news to your Mum.

E) Non-being cannot produce being. This is the principle of causality. Nothing cannot cause anything since nothing does not exist, and what does not exist cannot not cause anything. Only something can produce something. Deniable of this principle also entails a contradiction.

I'm not sure you can boldly state that, because you're applying the 'logic of being', our logic, to non-being. What are the logical rules of Non-Being? Who knows, wouldn't our logic say it's a nonsense question, or there aren't any. This is a key problem for these types of arguments imo.

F) Being causes being similar to itself. This is the principle of analogy. An effect resembles it's efficient cause. Like produces like. Being shares being, for this is all that it has to share. Being cannot give what it has not got. But what it gives (i.e., being) it must have had to give.

This reads as a bit jumbled to me, and as has been pointed out, equivocating the verb 'being' with the noun 'a being', which needs clarifying generally, and here specifically. Maybe you need to get that straight in your own mind? Anyway, on my reading, it seems to be repeating E, and adding that A Being must produce A Similar Being. But look at evolution - am I similar to a squirrel? An amoeba? The faeces I produce? (Some might say so!). How are you defining 'similar'?


My prob generally with the ontological argument is that it seems to be about coming up with a certain form of wording to achieve the (unadmitted) pre-existing goal behind it. There is a genuine mystery as regards the origins of the universe (if there was one), but what the best current theories suggest is that at the point of the singularity the rules all break down, so trying to apply post-singularity logic to what preceded it is probably a non-starter.

-- Updated December 4th, 2016, 12:32 pm to add the following --

DM

IMO, this is especially true of atheists. Is it possible for an articulate atheist to understand that the language of religion is mostly analogical? Since this understanding has been around for centuries, is there any excuse for atheists to understand with a univocal eye?

Well I'd say that a pretty good excuse is that religions historically have covered a huge range of types of belief, and those which have best survived modern critique have tended to be the ones which fall back on ambiguity and analogy. If you look at how Judaism and Christianity have evolved, isn't that a case in point? The religion of a local group whose god was in competition with others, to monotheism, expressed through revelation and intervention, now reduced to positions like 'the source of all being' which chime much better with contemporary world views, and a minority of the Abrahamic religions' followers.

But go on then, what's your version of what the religious analogies actually refer to?

Gertie wrote:

But go on then, what's your version of what the religious analogies actually refer to?

Need to break down reply into a). What did the author of the analogies refer to? and b). What is your interpretation of the analogies? and c). Is it permissible to interpret ancient analogies however one chooses?

The third and last answer requires justification according to some criterion such as "The subjective point of view is always both valid and necessary". Or " The purity must be maintained of ancient revelations from God ". Or " Meanings relate to intersubjective and constantly evolving cultural ambiences."

Belindi wrote:Gertie wrote:

But go on then, what's your version of what the religious analogies actually refer to?

Need to break down reply into a). What did the author of the analogies refer to? and b). What is your interpretation of the analogies? and c). Is it permissible to interpret ancient analogies however one chooses?

The third and last answer requires justification according to some criterion such as "The subjective point of view is always both valid and necessary". Or " The purity must be maintained of ancient revelations from God ". Or " Meanings relate to intersubjective and constantly evolving cultural ambiences."

Very good, Belindi!

Things are insanely shallow in a philosophy forum when it is not recognized on all sides that any philosophy is a system of interpretative beliefs. The difference between a religious and a nonreligious philosophy of living consists in the nature and level of recognized values and in the object of loyalties. Religious philosophies have long recognized the difficulty of conveying the character and nature of the object of loyalty. That's why there's "neti, neti" (negative theology) and Western positive theology -- "this, not that." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses the problem here.

Common to all religious philosophies is that that they are all foundational. For better or worse, they are all grounded in something that transcends the mundane.

Dark Matter wrote:

Belindi wrote:Gertie wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)


Need to break down reply into a). What did the author of the analogies refer to? and b). What is your interpretation of the analogies? and c). Is it permissible to interpret ancient analogies however one chooses?

The third and last answer requires justification according to some criterion such as "The subjective point of view is always both valid and necessary". Or " The purity must be maintained of ancient revelations from God ". Or " Meanings relate to intersubjective and constantly evolving cultural ambiences."

Very good, Belindi!

Things are insanely shallow in a philosophy forum when it is not recognized on all sides that any philosophy is a system of interpretative beliefs. The difference between a religious and a nonreligious philosophy of living consists in the nature and level of recognized values and in the object of loyalties. Religious philosophies have long recognized the difficulty of conveying the character and nature of the object of loyalty. That's why there's "neti, neti" (negative theology) and Western positive theology -- "this, not that." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses the problem here.

Common to all religious philosophies is that that they are all foundational. For better or worse, they are all grounded in something that transcends the mundane.

So... what's your version of what religious analogies actually refer to?

Gertie wrote:
So... what's your version of what religious analogies actually refer to?

Something that transcends the mundane.

It matters little what idea of the object of loyalty we entertain so long as we are acquainted with the ideal of its infinite and eternal nature. That's why Buddhism is as much a religion as classical theism. As I said elsewhere, the mission of theology is merely to facilitate the self-consciousness of personal spiritual experience.

-- Updated December 4th, 2016, 5:09 pm to add the following --

It's not a simple question of what's true, but what ideas best reflect the nature of our loyalties.

Dark Matter wrote:... Take, for example, "Cogito ergo sum" in the context of his second ontological argument. #2 clearly indicates that Descartes' sense of "am-ness," which depends entirely on his thinking, is inconceivable without a more perfect cause.

Couldn't that greater cause of "am-ness" be the human culture, shaped by its (and natural) history? Consider the "am-ness" of a feral child raised by other animals; the child's sense of self would seemingly fail to develop beyond that of a small child. So our minds, and the awareness that we so value, seem to a considerable extent largely be comprised of culture, the collective mind.

Dark Matter wrote:Being outside the context of Descartes' ontology, Renee's claim that "cogito ergo sum" has the strength of an a priori truth is self-defeating. It bears the inherent assumption that "I" is the thinker and therefore I exist. That's like saying the Bible is true because it says it's true

The collective mind says "everyone else seems to think I am, so I suppose I probably am". Then again "everyone" may be mislead by having the same limited human/animal senses.

Gertie wrote:

So... what's your version of what religious analogies actually refer to?

Something that transcends the mundane.

Well that's put this atheist in her place! I can't hope to get my univocal head around around such complexity

Greta wrote:

Dark Matter wrote:... Take, for example, "Cogito ergo sum" in the context of his second ontological argument. #2 clearly indicates that Descartes' sense of "am-ness," which depends entirely on his thinking, is inconceivable without a more perfect cause.

Couldn't that greater cause of "am-ness" be the human culture, shaped by its (and natural) history? Consider the "am-ness" of a feral child raised by other animals; the child's sense of self would seemingly fail to develop beyond that of a small child. So our minds, and the awareness that we so value, seem to a considerable extent largely be comprised of culture, the collective mind.

I'd say it's both.

The collective mind says "everyone else seems to think I am, so I suppose I probably am". Then again "everyone" may be mislead by having the same limited human/animal senses.

Precisely. The self emerges from consciousness trying to define itself.

Holophany, The Loop of Creation by Clara Szalai is a bit "out there," but I think it's an interesting take on how "Wholeness" defines itself. (The link takes you to a free PDF download.)

-- Updated December 4th, 2016, 6:56 pm to add the following --

Gertie wrote:

(Nested quote removed.)


Something that transcends the mundane.

Well that's put this atheist in her place! I can't hope to get my univocal head around around such complexity

That's just a culturally ingrained habit, thanks largely to Newton and Descartes.

The descriptor that works for me is the doctrine of divine simplicity or Plotinus' One.

Dark Matter wrote:

It's not a simple question of what's true, but what ideas best reflect the nature of our loyalties.

I like the allegory of the creation in Genesis the one about God made light and there was light and so on. I like this allegory because it is about how there is reality which is other than mind-dependent reality. Or to put it another way it's about how solipsism is not the case.

Cool. What follow-up questions does it evoke? Where do your loyalties lie? With mundane empiricism or something more fundamental than that?

Well DM, my frustration with approaches like yours is that when put on the spot and asked to pin down what you mean in clear terms, the answer is usually evasive, vague or actually mundane. And your five word vague reply was no exception. If you want to give it a proper go, you might surprise me...

But the impression I have at the moment is that like many people you project your own world view onto religious texts and traditions (I did it myself when I was religious, it's totally understandable). And the history of Christian theology for example, does much the same. Your take on religion as someone with a 21st century world view doesn't have much in common with what the founders of Christianity thought. Or Jesus, from what we can tell. If your claim is that their psychological motivation behind their specific religious beliefs was rooted in trying to make sense of their sense of there being 'something that transcends the mundane', well maybe that's a part of it. But then there are mundane explanations for the sense that there's 'something that transcends the mundane'.

Dark Matter wrote:

Cool. What follow-up questions does it evoke? Where do your loyalties lie? With mundane empiricism or something more fundamental than that?

That there is something such that it's not mind-dependent evokes the idea that nature/reality is physical besides a mental construct.

-- Updated December 4th, 2016, 7:51 pm to add the following --

Dark Matter wrote:

Cool. What follow-up questions does it evoke? Where do your loyalties lie? With mundane empiricism or something more fundamental than that?

That there is something such that it's not mind-dependent evokes the idea that nature/reality is physical besides a mental construct.

Mundane empiricism is not enough because its logical conclusion is solipsism. Solipsism feels ridiculous, it's uncomfortable to live with, it lacks an ethical dimension, and it lacks subjectivity without which learning and thus evolution would be impossible.