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

[JackDaydream]

I understand this loosening to centre on broadening and deepening the scope of our thinking. So rather than focussing on the exact and precise meaning of terms, we deliberately blur those boundaries and broaden the scope of what is referred to, to include and embrace more of the world in our thinking. It refers, in detail, to 'stretching' the definitions of words, with the aim of promoting a more general discussion and consideration.

I am in favour of broadening terms to encompass diverse thinking about ideas of God, because I look to comparative religion as a source. However, many people are concerned to pinpoint an exact meaning. This is what fundamentalists do and even in philosophy there can be strict divisions and labels, especially the neat divide between theism and atheism, with some acknowledgement of agnosticism. The labels can sometimes be taken as given, without looking into overlaps and blurry edges.

I agree with your implication, that this loosened thinking has its place, just as its near-opposite, binary thinking, does. There are some topics and discussions where precision is key. But there are others where a broader and more general outlook is helpful.

But we should bear in mind that, as we 'loosen' our terms, we render them less precise, as we seek to encompass and embrace a wider range of meaning. This blurring is the price of generalisation, and we should be aware of it, and willing to pay it.

The balance between use of ideas and terms is intricate. That is because academic philosophy can be too theoretical and casual conversation can ignore historical and rational basis of argument. I say that because I became wound up reading the 'God' thread on what caused God, in the middle of the night. It ended up with debate over whether information on Aristotle"s ideas was reliable comparing the Wiki philosophy of Aristotle to internet information on cholesterol. I don't mean any disrespect to the people involved and it made me wish to write a reply asking God's causal role in cholesterol creation.

I didn't write that though, and wrote a post trying to look at Kant and Schopenhauer because these issues are part of many centuries of philosophy debate. The debate in the night was focused on Aristotle, but it is such a wide area, as in the way in which Aquinas interpreted Aristotle's ideas in the context of Christian theology.

One book which I am reading which has bearing on my own thread and the one on what created God is 'The Mind of God: Science and the Search For Ultimate Meaning' by Paul Davies. This looks at issues such as the laws of nature, causation in the light of both philosophy debate and the findings of science. I am probably best to stick to in the context of this thread because if I got into in the other one there is a danger that people may see it as me claiming expertise on the basis of my reading. That is far from my intention and Paul Davies argues for the limitations of knowledge for some of these issues on the basis of empiricism and explanations. So, there is a lot which has been considered but there are limitations of how far is possible to go. As an armchair speculator, as you know how I have committed the crime and 'blasphemy' of speculation. So, it may be a balance between the balance of academic rigour and some loose thought, in such a way to avoid pedantic analysis but not loosen thought to the point where philosophy issues become trivialised into casual caricatures. I am not saying that I am able to walk this delicate tightrope but it is my aim to do so to the best of my ability.