As a non-philosopher I find this is dense and hard to follow, but very interesting.

It sounds like you are advocating for a metaphysical, shall we even say, 'faith based' belief? But obviously not in the traditional sense.

In essence, you seem to be saying that analytic philosophy's approach is too narrow and limiting and serves to keep metaphysics safely at bay and 'the unfamiliar world and its stunning issues' contained. And you are suggesting that the future of philosophy and some notion of transcendence may be found in using the phenomenological method and the metaphysics it 'opens up' to our awareness (sorry if the language is clumsy). Is this a fair summary?

What is it that you think lies beyond the censorious methodologies of analytic philosophy? Where do suppose the phenomenological approach takes human beings for it to be called a 'new religion'? — Tom Storm

Sorry if this is hard to follow. I guess a person eventually becomes the what he reads.

My take on religion and philosophy is at a glance, pretty simple. the world is moving into an era of radical disillusionment, and the old narratives are simply not sustainable. What we see in the lying and cheating in politics is in part the death throes of popular religion, as believers become desperate in an increasingly unbelieving world.

You know, back in the sixties many scientists actually believed religion would simply die out. But this will not happen. For religion has an existential grounding, not just an historical one, and this lies with ethics and value. Science cannot touch these issues, and there is a strong tendency to redefine them to fit what physical science can say. But ethics and value are the MOST salient features of our being here in the world, and I don't think this can be argued about. If it was not for this dimension of our world, we would be as very complex sticks and stones.

Religion is, at root, "exclusively" about this very dimension of our existence. It is hard to see this given all of the history and metaphysics, but ethics and value is what religion is ALL about. Not even a challenging claim, as I see it. Phenomenology is a way to isolate essential things int he world and give them analysis at the foundational level of what they are. Kant was the first (?) phenomenologist as he took the givenness of experience and abstracted pure reason as a structural feature of our existence. It was there, everywhere in everything we encountered; i.e., part of its essential structure so that in order to be a human experience at all, it had to be invested with reason. As I see it, the same is true form value, only here, we have abstracted to the meaning of things, and not dictionary meanings, but the concrete meanings that give the world its "impossible" dimension. Wittgenstein wouldn't talk about it. this is a man who went to war with the intended purpose of facing death! Meaning, or value-based meaning, was paramount to him, that is, he felt the world very deeply and he had to know. Such an interesting person, brilliantly analytic, but so passionate! Few ever like him.

Anyway, in the end, religion will not parish because what it is about is an integral part of our being here. In the structure of our existence, there is the openness of metaphysics; ethics and value facing this openness insists on consummation and remedy. The next religious phase of our philosophical evolution will be to prioritize ethics and value. As I see it, Husserl's epoche lays a foundation for what will happen, for it is a Cartesian move inward, and here, I argue (as best I can) this leads to a radical unfolding of subjectivity. What this is about and what the argument is has its beginning just here. The more I read post or neo Husserlian thinking, the more I am convinced.

I don't think it's usually about greatness. — frank

Ehhhh….just one of several predicates in a definition. Any qualitative superlative would work.

It's just that words are sometimes like fingers and some of experience falls through the open hands of language. — frank

Oh, you silver-tongued devil, you.

To be sure, blind folk are able to talk of the warmth of red and the chill of blue. They can use colour words in much the same way as the sighted. But what they cannot do is to choose the correct word for some object that is before them, to say if it is yellow or it is green. — Banno

Anyone can use any word. By pattern recognition anyone can use any word in a plausible sounding way. What the blind cannot do re color words is know what they are talking about.

And since we do talk about our experiences, they are not ineffable. — Banno

Our experiences are effable. What is beyond discourse is the elementals of our experience, your beloved, qualia.

You know if you really wanted to undermine The Morningstar of Philosophy we could start a Husserl reading group -- then we could make smarmy remarks about how Heidegger is just misunderstood Husserl. ;)

Furthermore, in one of my references on philosophy, they indicated that Husserl, toward the end of his career, wrote that the dream of putting the sciences on firm foundations was over. Rather tragic end to one who began phenomenology to put all the sciences on secure footing. Talking about a dead end — Richard B

Could you send me that reference?You may be confusing Husserl’s critique of modern sciences as failing to ground themselves on the basis of traditional presuppositions of empiricism with his own transcendental grounding.

Husserl’s last published work was The Crisis of the European Sciences( 1936), completed two years before his death. It attacks Cartesian and Kantian-based explanations of the basis of scientific truth( which brought us logical positivism) as leading to a crisis of justification within the sciences , and reiterates and further elaborates the firm footing for science in transcendental subjectivity, the central idea of his life’s work. In sum, scientific truth is grounded on objective concepts formed within intersubjective communities, which are themselves the reciprocal interactions among subjective perspectives.

Well, that's what I've heard. I've also heard other things about him, which, of course, do nothing to diminish his glory.

the execrable must be summoned. — Ciceronianus


And here you are! — frank

Makes sense...Ciceroni-anus the execrable...or excremental... :joke:

And here you are! — frank

Ah, but I wasn't summoned, you see. That would require evocation by use of a name, as one would the Lord of the Flies, i.e. Beelzebub, the chief follower of Satan/Lucifer in Milton's Paradise Lost.

Makes sense...Ciceroni-anus the execrable...or excremental... :joke:
23 minutes ago — Janus

Actually, ianus is the significant part of the appellation, typically used in Latin in adjectives formed from proper names. So, Ciceronianus means broadly speaking someone like Cicero or a follower of Cicero, instead of Cicero's anus. But it's an interesting interpretation.

frank

Ah, but I wasn't summoned, you see. That would require evocation by use of a name, as one would the Lord of the Flies, i.e. Beelzebub, the chief follower of Satan/Lucifer in Milton's Paradise Lost. — Ciceronianus

Is it e-voke or in-voke? I don't want to get it wrong and blow up the high school.

the firm footing for science in transcendental subjectivity, — Joshs

Transcendental consciousness is an absolute subjectivity that cannot be an object and. cannot be given reflectively. Because it can never be an object, one cannot say. anything about it or characterize it.

Ineffable :cool:

How many scientists have even heard or read of this?

Janus
wants to talk about Himalayan politics. — Banno

No, the point was that we all have our own mountains of experience, and you want to flatten that out such that there could be no difference as to what 'mountain' means to each of us.

What you don't seem to get is that saying that there is a concrete object "mountain" "there" which we all independently experience and talk about is not so much wrong as it is just one possible way of talking about a situation we actually cannot get to the bottom of. It is the least thoughtful, naive way of thinking about it.

Another way of speaking about it; that is to say that there is "something" unknowable which gives rise to the human experience commonly referred to as "mountain", is neither more nor less correct, per se, but has the advantage of being more philosophically, phenomenologically, subtle .

That you don't personally favour the latter way of thinking says everything about you and nothing about the merits or demerits of either way of thinking.

the firm footing for science in transcendental subjectivity,
— Joshs

Transcendental consciousness is an absolute subjectivity that cannot be an object and. cannot be given reflectively. Because it can never be an object, one cannot say. anything about it or characterize it.

Ineffable :cool:

How many scientists have even heard or read of this? — jgill

You might want to check out Berkeley philosopher Alva Noe for a link between Husserlian phenomenology and contemporary perceptual science. A.I. and perceptual psychology are two domains where there is an increasing interest in phenomenology. Husserl and Merleau-Ponty both contributed intricate and original analyses of the mechanisms of perception.

“Alva Noë is a modern-day empiricist. His book Action in Perception is chockablock with contemporary cognitive science; its preface and notes (not to mention general erudition) point to on-going collaboration with Evan Thompson, Kevin O’Regan, and Susan Hurley. Their research investigates the sensorimotor bases of consciousness, and Action in Perception is offered as its philosophical backdrop.”

You might want to check out Berkeley philosopher Alva Noe for a link between Husserlian phenomenology and contemporary perceptual science. — Joshs

Makes sense. Thanks.

What the blind cannot do re color words is know what they are talking about. — hypericin

And yet folk who are blind do use colour words, correctly.

Pardon me, but your abelism is showing.

Actually, ianus is the significant part of the appellation, typically used in Latin in adjectives formed from proper names. — Ciceronianus

So where does that leave ?

What you don't seem to get is that saying that there is a concrete object "mountain" "there" which we all independently experience and talk about is not so much wrong as it is just one possible way of talking about a situation we actually cannot get to the bottom of. It is the least thoughtful, naive way of thinking about it. — Janus

So, what is it we can't say about mountains?

Another way of speaking about it; that is to say that there is "something" unknowable which gives rise to the human experience commonly referred to as "mountain" — Janus

I'm thinking that the "something" which gives rise to the human experience commonly referred to as "mountain"... is the mountain.

But we do talk about mountains, and hence they are not ineffable.

So I can't quite see what it is you are saying.

So where does that leave ↪Janus? — Banno

Janus is the Roman god of doorways and gates, also transitions, usually depicted as having two faces, not two asses. But the Romans didn't use js, so in Latin it would be spelled Ianus.

Actually, ianus is the significant part of the appellation, typically used in Latin in adjectives formed from proper names. — Ciceronianus


So where does that leave ↪Janus
? — Banno

I- anus: i.e. I am an arsehole...but at least I am not like and/or don't follow anyone.

So, what is it we can't say about mountains? — Banno

Hilarious...you expect me to say what it is that can't be said.

Note, there is a difference between saying thst there is that which can't be said and, per imposibile, saying what "that" is. Conflating those will only confuse you further.

So I can't quite see what it is you are saying. — Banno

Of course you can't...you're excused.




:victory: you got it.

Ah, so Janus is neither arse-following, nor ass-following. Thanks for clearing that up.

This may be limited characterization of Anglo American philosophy. W. V. Quine, one who belongs is such a tradition, said the following in Word and Object, "There are, however, philosophers who overdo this line of thought, treating ordinary language as sacrosanct. They exalt ordinary language to the exclusion of one of its own traits: its disposition to keep on evolving." — Richard B

But the evolving he has in mind follows science's lead. Causal explanations of
psychology are to be sought in physiology, of physiology in biology, of biology in chemistry,
and of chemistry in physics—in the elementary physical states. From Facts of the Matter (pp168-69) he writes, Causal explanations of psychology are to be sought in physiology, of physiology in biology, of biology in chemistry, and of chemistry in physics—in the elementary physical states.

"As Christopher Hookway succinctly puts it, “for Quine, the physical facts are all the facts." (from David Golumbia's QUINE, DERRIDA, AND THE QUESTION OF PHILOSOPHY)

Hilarious...you expect me to say what it is that can't be said. — Janus

Indeed, there might be a sort of catharsis in the realisation that this is not doable, and perhaps the absence of a something to which "ineffable" refers.

But we do talk about mountains, and hence they are not ineffable. — Banno

It doesn't get more astute than this. Exceeds all expectations of a mole hill. :smile:

Yes, not a something, but not a nothing either.

:lol:

Oh, I do hope you are not getting the wrong impression concerning philosophy... :wink:

Then is there a substantive point of disagreement here?

not a something, but not a nothing either. — Janus

that is to say that there is "something" unknowable which gives rise to the human experience commonly referred to as "mountain" — Janus

It's a mountain.

It's a mountain — Banno

No, it is both a mountain and not a mountain and neither a mountain nor not a mountain. But keep on insisting if you think it weill get you somewhere

...it is both a mountain and not a mountain and neither a mountain nor not a mountain. — Janus

What is it you are claiming here?
give folk enough rope...

What is it you are claiming here? — Banno

I'm not claiming anything...least of all that it is a mountain, or not a mountain...

I'm trying to get you to see that there is no determinate fact of the matter.

It seems that you don't have enough rope for conquering mountains...but keep trying anyway...

So there must be something else, some other explanatory means that can account for brains AMONG the trees and tables and coffee cups of the world. In other words, brain talk is not foundational. — Constance

Must there be another explanatory means? Or might it be the case that we've tripped across the boundary of language?

Materialism takes an objective model and applies it across the board, but this leads to an existential alienation, as if what we really are is forever distant in t he "out thereness" of things, and one could argue that this kind of thinking in the modern age, so bound to its objectifying methods, is what has led to the crisis of identity. — Constance

I think this is an oversimplification of materialism. If materialism be the case, then our identities are material, and so there's no existential alienation -- rather, an affirmation of our identities where there is no "out there-ness" of things. They aren't out there, just we are partly an object, partly activity, partly experience, and partly language -- and the objects are right next to you, not out there.

At least, from my materialist way of looking at things.