• creativesoul
    11.6k
    I referred to metaphysics. This is about the lack of fixity our ideas have at the basic level.Constance

    Ya think?

    How do you know without knowing what "the basic level" includes?
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    Ideas' meanings are derived from the contexts in which they are found. But contexts are determinative or finite. "The world" possesses in its meaning "that which is not contextual" I am arguing.Constance

    Assertion, not argument.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    ...This is the metaphysical ground of ethics, where ethics, and therefore religion, acquires its foundation.Constance

    As if all religion is existentially dependent upon a fairly recent philosophical practice we've named metaphysics?

    Nah.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    The narrative account in question refers to the religious narrative that is the stuff that sermons are made out of, and all the bad metaphysics. Not about narrative as such.Constance

    Bullshit.

    The narrative in question was all narrative.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    The assertion "Philosophy wants to know what things are at the most basic level of inquiry" is attributing wants to things that are incapable of forming/having them. I'd charge anthropomorphism; however, humans are not the only creatures capable of wanting things.

    Philosophy is something that is practiced. Practices are not the sort of things that 'want to know' anything. Practitioners are.
    — creativesoul

    "Attributing wants to things"? A bit left fieldish.
    Constance

    Still having problems with spatiotemporal locations I see.

    No, it's right there on everyone's screen!
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    We move through life never questioning these engagements in a culture, and as a result, we never realize our "true" nature.Astrophel

    That's not true.

    You are close when you say "It may refer to the fact that no one chooses the socioeconomic circumstances they are born into." Right. But when one does choose, she is already IN a lifestyle, a language, a body of meaningful institutions. This is one's throwness.Astrophel

    Right?

    They don't get to choose so it makes no sense whatsoever to say otherwise...

    Geez.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    If you're attempting to equate ethics with "being thrown into disease, and countless miseries, as well as the joys, blisses, and the countless delights" then I'll have to walk. That makes no sense whatsoever.
    — creativesoul

    Just ask, what IS ethics? This is not to ask Kant's question, or MIll's, but it is a question of ontology; not what should one do, but what is the very nature of the ethical and therefore religious imposition. So, if you take no interest in such a thing, then you probably should, as you say, walk.
    Constance

    Who needs goalposts anyway?

    Ethics is not equivalent to spinoffs and extrapolations from/of Heiddy's thought.
  • Constance
    1.2k
    Nah. It did not begin by thinking about thinking practices as subject matters in their own right.creativesoul

    But metaphysics is not about thinking practices. These are hermeneutic. No, religion is about the dimension of our existence called value. Religion is about metavalue, metaethics, metaaesthetics. This is what Heidegger did not understand.
  • Constance
    1.2k
    How do you know without knowing what "the basic level" includes?creativesoul

    One discovers the basic level through inquiry. Heidy found there to be no single primordiality (as with the Christian God), but rather, a complex ontology of equiprimordiality, and if the matter were about language, then I would agree. But religion is not grounded in this.
  • Constance
    1.2k
    Assertion, not argument.creativesoul

    True. I am referring the argument at hand, though. Here is what I wrote in response to Janus just now:

    Janus wrote:

    For me 'God' signifies nothing beyond the highest feelings and principles that humans aspire to. Unconditional love, unwavering steadfastness, indomitable bravery and so on.

    I responded:

    Perhaps there is something to this, in fact, I would say there is, but this still remains distant from the affirmation of divinity. It is the same kind of thinking that gave rise to those pesky "omni this and that" that engendered so much empty metaphysical theology. In order for the "highest feelings" to be liberated from finitude, so to speak, feelings have to examined for "properties" that can do this. I recall Moore's analysis of ethics and "the Good" in which he called this a non natural property. Curious the way this goes, for it requires an examination of the finite and accessible occasion of the good. That is, an ethical or aesthetic example. What makes this apple's taste "good" to me? But first, because it is good to me, it becomes a possible object of some ethical problematic. If it were not in any way good to me, and this may include my concern for others for whom the apple is good, then there can be no basis for an ethical complaint regarding it. The point is, it is this mysterious goodness that is among the various other properties, the sweetness, the texture, the complex taste features, etc., that makes the apple ethically viable.
    But back to the good. Why mysterious? And why did Wittgenstein call value transcendental? To me, this is a fascinating question, for note as one enjoys the apple, and all of the empirical predications are analytically exhausted, there is this residual good. What IS it? One cannot observe it, and this raises eyebrows as to whether is "exists" at all. It is invisible, as odd as this may sound. But take a stronger example, much stronger, like falling in love and being ecstatic or your "unconditional love." Here the residual good (as I will call it) still cannot be empirically identified (it is not, after all, an empirical property) yet "it" dominates entirely the analysis of this love (or happiness. Love is happiness with an attachment).
    Think of the other dimension of ethics and aesthetics, the Bad. Not observable, yet apply the thumb screws and the bad is now this overwhelming presence.
    There is a reason Wittgenstein in his great book of facts has nothing of ethics in it (see his Lecture on Ethics). The good and the bad are transcendental, but one more thing has to be made clear: The good and the bad are apodictic, or apriori, if you like: universal and necessary in what they are; non contingent.
  • Constance
    1.2k
    As if all religion is existentially dependent upon a fairly recent philosophical practice we've named metaphysics?creativesoul

    No. Metaethics is discovered IN the analysis of mundane ethics. Ethics has its grounding in the value dimension of our existence. This is an apriori argument about the structure of experience. It has nothing to do with how recently the argument and the language came into being.
  • Constance
    1.2k
    Bullshit.

    The narrative in question was all narrative.
    creativesoul

    No, you are mistaken.

    And a nervy thing to say entirely without warrant. When I say religion has to be delivered from traditional narratives, it is simply to say that popular religions are constructed out of a lot of assumptions that are unsustainable on face value. Religion generally calls upon faith rather than justified belief. The idea here is that faith has driven religion into absurd reasoning. This can be overcome by phenomenological analysis.
  • Constance
    1.2k
    That's not true.creativesoul

    Hmmm. Cryptically succinct.
  • Constance
    1.2k
    They don't get to choose so it makes no sense whatsoever to say otherwise...creativesoul

    No, no, my good friend. You are being invited to think a bit. When you raise your awareness to philosophical thought, you find you are always already (a Heidy term) IN a culture, a language, a "potentiality of possiblities" (Heidy yet again). In this, you have been making decisions all your life. But I cannot, for example, decide how to dress for a formal dinner in Indonesia.
  • Constance
    1.2k
    Who needs goalposts anyway?

    Ethics is not equivalent to spinoffs and extrapolations from/of Heiddy's thought.
    creativesoul

    The matter here is not about goalposts, though. This is the trouble with not reading closely. This is a descriptive argument. It is not about making things fair or just.
    :cool: Have a nice, day creativesoul. I find your conversation....too vacant.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    Philosophy wants to know what things are at the most basic level of inquiry, and the narrative account is the first thing to go.Astrophel

    How do you know without knowing what "the basic level" includes?
    — creativesoul

    One discovers the basic level through inquiry.
    Constance

    Do you have a list of things found at the most basic level of inquiry?
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    Religion is about metaphysics...
    — Astrophel

    Nah. It did not begin by thinking about thinking practices as subject matters in their own right.
    creativesoul

    Nah. It did not begin by thinking about thinking practices as subject matters in their own right.
    — creativesoul

    But metaphysics is not about thinking practices.
    Constance

    Red herring.

    Some religion was before all such practices began. Not all religion is/was about thinking practices. Metaphysics IS a thinking practice. Some religion was before metaphysics.
  • creativesoul
    11.6k
    ...religion is about the dimension of our existence called value. Religion is about metavalue, metaethics, metaaesthetics.Constance

    Metaethics is discovered IN the analysis of mundane ethics.Constance

    Religion is about metavalue, metaethics, metaaesthetics.Constance

    It follows that religion is about that which is discovered IN the analysis of mundane ethics. That's not true either. Religion was around long before we began doing that sort of analysis.
  • AmadeusD
    2k
    I see this thread has once again gone entirely off the rails into territory it neither should be covering, or makes for sensible exchanges.

    *sigh*. The more philosophy i do outside of this forum the less appealing smart-sounding, but un(der)regulated discussion becomes.
17891011Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.