Even if you could know (per impossibile) that religion is false, and yet you were nonetheless able (per impossibile) to believe that it is true, and to do so would greatly enhance your joy of living, would it then be wrong somehow to believe? — John

Now, I have a problem with these theoretical posits. You say "per impossible", and I say, "yes, it's all impossible, the things you describe". So, I don't see how this is even an argument. Forgive me, I don't mean it to sound so harsh, because this is something I see a lot in philosophy in general. But, basically, why make an argument that's actually impossible? What does it achieve?

Yes, is not much of what we take to be "rational" precisely the inauthentic voice of "das Man", or 'the they" to quote Heidegger. The second part of your passage here seems to be reflecting that idea somewhat. — John

I don't know Heidegger, but I'll got with it. The bits I've read of him weren't disagreeable for me.

Also, John, you didn't address this:

Why are practical reasons things we should try to pursue? I don't understand these sorts of questions and arguments because I don't understand how you can use language to predicate things you think are significant and then afterwards ask questions about the word "truth". — Noble Dust

The question for me is not to do with pursuing practical reasons. Not even in the Kantian sense; I never found the idea that we are warranted in believing in Freedom, Immortality and God for practical (in this context meaning 'moral') reasons convincing. — John

I wasn't saying that; my use of "practical reasons" was a quote of you, and the use of the term was negative in both contexts (your use and mine).

It's more to do with whether it is valuable to believe (in the sense of 'live according to') what is genuinely believed to be true just on account of the fact that we do genuinely believe it is true, or is it just that we cannot help believing what we genuinely believe to be true. — John

Your language here is hard to parse; are you saying "is earnest belief valuable, or can we just not help being earnest?" That's how I read it. As such, it doesn't make a lot of sense, so I must be misreading it.

Is it more important to be authentic than it is to be happy in, for example, believing what we know to be comforting but quite likely false (given that we are capable of doing that)? — John

I'll take a weird side-road here and say that I think both are true. Authenticity is the ultimate reality, in a way...right? Inauthenticity is reproachable; it's the worst. It's disgusting. But...I think back to what I said recently in another thread, when quoting Dostoevsky: "I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too." My interpretation of Dostoevsky here is that the free will of the individual trumps rationality. Rationality has nothing to say in the face of blithe free thought, other than "you're an idiot!". And in this sense, irrationality wins. Free thought ultimately is not specifically rational. Rationality is a component of free thought, not it's predicate.

This severely overlooked album. Basically the Ok Computer of hard/southern rock. even released the same year.

My question, though, is as to whether truth just in itself is somehow valuable, and not merely for practical reasons. — John

That clarifies what you meant, for me. But, still...I have trouble with the whole thing; the language of the whole situation. Truth being "somehow valuable", "not merely for practical reasons"? So, how is value predicated? Why are practical reasons things we should try to pursue? I don't understand these sorts of questions and arguments because I don't understand how you can use language to predicate things you think are significant and then afterwards ask questions about the word "truth".

Or, how is value true?

A gun can be useful. How is it's use the greatest philosophical value?

Well said.

WHEN is twice two makes five useful or "charming"? You mean that it is charming to be meaningless? — Harry Hindu

Dostoevsky was a literary fiction writer. You're interpreting his idea here philosophically, rather than in a literary way. What I meant when I brought up the quote is that I'm in agreement with Dostoevsky when he chooses to willfully rail against rationality as being the only source of truth, or the only understanding of reality. Another well known Dostoevsky quotes goes something along the lines of, 'If it was proved that Christ never existed, I'd rather go with Christ". The idea is that the sheer profundity of something like a backlash against rationality, or the profundity of divine Grace, are things that are sufficient for some men (men and women of great intellectual poise) to willfully throw away this modern reliance on rationality; to willfully rail against it; to rage against it. Indeed, to function, mentally, philosophically, within a rational realm doesn't avail itself to anything outside of rationality. So it's a self-defeating system that scrutinizes everything within it's own set of rules, without allowing for the possibility of new, or forgotten, or overlooked rules. In other words, rationality, strictly in the way you're using it, doesn't make room for creativity.

Dostoyevski is my absolute favourite writer, his ability to describe the human condition, of the ordinary and unoriginal who are applauded for their esteemed qualities or the suffering and filth of genuine hearts is quite simply unmatched. “Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing compared to love in dreams.” — TimeLine

(Y)

I don't know what you mean here. I was saying "why should philosophy only achieve a 'better' understanding of the world, instead of achieving the understanding of the world?"

And to be clear, I do feel some solidarity with your post here, but I was just calling into question some of your assumptions, or at least the assumptions I thought I was reading into what you were saying.

Depending on your stance on Christianity as a whole, you might be interested in Nikolai Berdyaev. He was a Russian existentialist/Christian/mystic philosopher during the early 20th century. The sorts of things you're saying here align with some of his views. The Meaning of the Creative Act, and The Divine and the Human are good starting points with him. He says, for instance, "Pure, undistorted truth burns up the world".

Why only better?

And you never answered this:

On the contrary, doesn't critical methodology point to value? Critical thinking needs a point, a telos. Otherwise there's no reason to think critically. — Noble Dust

Maybe try responding to me next time.

That's how I'd like to proceed.

>:O

If you're asking me a question such as "why identify fallacies" in the context of a conversation that I'd feel is worth having--and in good faith, I'd proceed as if that's what's going on--then I'd assume that you're asking non-sardonically, and that you're asking because you want me to explain something to you. — Terrapin Station

Nope, I don't want you to explain anything to me, I want to have a discussion. If you're only looking to explain things to me, then I'll be sure to not respond to any more of your posts.

But, yes, I was asking you the question "why identify fallacies? Why is that a worthwhile thing to do?" You could at this point, respond to that question (which I asked several posts ago), or you could not do so. Your choice.

I edited as you posted

So you assume I'm not reading the words "explain it to you" sardonically?

Oh, please explain away. Why wait for my permission?

You miss my point. Why should we identify fallacies?

So, but why identify fallacies?

You want the tool to be able to keep working as it does in perpetuity. — Terrapin Station

What I mean is that critical thinking itself can't be the point. Critical thinking is the tool. What's the use of it?

The value is the critical methodology. — Terrapin Station

On the contrary, doesn't critical methodology point to value? Critical thinking needs a point, a telos. Otherwise there's no reason to think critically.

It's just like the value of a screwdriver isn't a completed item and then we're done. The value of a screwdriver is that we can screw things in and out with it. — Terrapin Station

But what are we building?

We want it to be able to keep performing those actions. It's a tool to use. — Terrapin Station

In perpetuity? Or until the task is done?

The value of philosophy is rather in its critical methodology, where conclusions are challenged, where assumptions are ferreted out and undermined, and so on. Doing this in perpetuity is the project of philosophy. Finding consensus solutions is not.

This isn't to suggest that individual philosophers shouldn't reach conclusions, shouldn't aim for figuring out answers in their view.

And of course many will disagree with what I say here. They wouldn't be doing philosophy if they didn't disagree. — Terrapin Station

Is challenging conclusions, individual philosophers reaching conclusions, and widespread disagreement really the end project of philosophy? What's the point?

I've been trying to write down a coherent analysis/synopsis of the entire historical and ideological root stem and leaf of the ridiculous virtue/outrage culture that has coalesced in recent years, but it's been hard cataloging all the particulars. — VagabondSpectre

We seem to disagree on the fundamentals in philosophy, but I'm right with you on this (probably because I live in one of the metropolitan loci of this political stance you describe, and I don't fit in). I would be fascinated to read what you've written.

The critical angle I've chosen to take is to describe the phenomenon as an ouroboros because it begins out of a desire to be virtuous and promote certain moral values (like freedom from oppression) but inexorably (through many snake like twists) it comes back and sinks it's teeth squarely into the values which originally founded it.. — VagabondSpectre

Yup. How to communicate this to those who are caught in the cycle, though?...

Here are some !!fun!! examples: — VagabondSpectre

Are these real examples?

I've been through all the academic theory (it's facile) — VagabondSpectre

Can you elaborate?

However, I know that some members here live, work in NYC, and I wonder if any of them have gone over to take a look it and could respond? — Cavacava

I haven't, honestly because I don't really care that much, and I hate going to touristy areas, especially for one single piece of art, like in this case. To me, the sheer charade of something this celebrated and mainstream basically gives you what you need to know. The charade is the piece. Maybe if I went down at 3 am to take a look I might experience it in a meaningful way, but 2pm on a weekday will just be a crowded mess and not really worth experiencing.

That part of NYC is great place to visit, along with the Staten Island Ferry, the Fulton Fish Market, Chinatown, Little Italy and SOHO... — Cavacava

Little Italy and Soho have gotten pretty commercial. Chinatown will remain smelly and magical, for now at least. Lower Manhattan still retains it's charm versus the rest of the Borough, though. What part of the city is your "hometown"?

I'm sure no one particularly wants to hear my blithe opinions, but I love it. I love the whole charade, right from the start with the bull. This whole serial is the sort of high-school gossip political art jargon that gets the hard left off these days, whether with rage or zealotry. The corporate sponsorship of the girl just makes it even better. Now a pissing pug. It's all pretty much meaningless. It's so self-conscious that it's eating itself like Oroboros.

If we ever find something that is more powerful than rationality, then every rational person will adopt it! — VagabondSpectre

*Listens to The Rite of Spring*

...

:-O

I ask because despite its being so fervently touted as the sparkling jewel of philosophy there's so many ''issues'' that have not yielded the desired results. — TheMadFool

Rationality is kind of the cornerstone of philosophy, though. To me, this is an important distinction. I'm interested in philosophy, and philosophical ways of thinking, but I'm also interested in other ways of thinking, and I'm interested in the pursuit of meaning and truth (which don't always set squarely within philosophical bounds). I've been one to rail against rationality on this forum, but nowadays I'm not so concerned with that as I am with how to think properly. I'm not so concerned with whether the proper way to think is philosophical or not. To suggest that philosophy needs to begin to use different modes of thinking almost seems unessisary; what good is it to convince the analytics to be artists? Why make the logicians logotherapists? The harder task seems to be to convince everyone that every mode of thinking is equally valid (equal in the measure of value that each mode brings to the human experience; this doesn't mean there isn't a hierarchical set of thinking-modes).

First, the reason why we talk about the paradoxes so much is that they are interesting precisely because we cannot readily solve them. — Chany

This assumption stays within the set of reasoning that the Mad Fool seems to be stepping outside of when he makes his argument against rationality being "all there is".

Results are results. If they aren't what you "desire" then maybe you should try to be more objective and understand that the results were never guaranteed to be desirable to the human species, or even life for that matter. — Harry Hindu

The same assumption here.

They are simply rules for human beings to follow in order to stay in line with the cultures they are born in. — Harry Hindu

Personally, I'm with Doestovesky's Underground Man: "I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too."

But what do you think about intelligence? There's some interesting thoughts about it in this thread, for instance:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1448/intelligence#Item_12

It would be interesting if there were experiments on generalized helplessnes — Purple Pond

I think generalized helplessness would just be a collection of different "ropes" tied to one's psyche.

Dennett is right about the dangers of a post-intelligent design world, but the problem is that it came about through materialism, which also happens to be part of his worldview. A materialist worldview leads to an emphasis on survival and flourishing, which leads to a dependence on technological innovation to bring about those states because the underlying assumption is that technology is fundamentally good: If the physical is the only aspect of the world, then the human condition needs to be dealt with through human manipulation of that one and only world. The problem with this underlying assumption about the goodness of technology is that it's a fallacy. Take the internet. It can be used to discuss philosophy, or consume child porn. The internet itself is a neutral piece of technology. A given aspect of the human condition, exerted by an individual, determines how any given piece of technology is used. It's a fallacy to assume that harnessing the physical world through technology will lead to an improvement in the human condition. But this view of technology and a materialistic worldview are inseparable, as far as I can tell. Dennett's whole project falls apart, as I believe Wayfarer already said. The human condition needs to be dealt with not through an apprehension of the physical, via technology, but through an apprehension of the metaphysical, via morality.

I think there are different aspects to intelligence, and I think intelligence also has a strong psychological aspect. IQ tests, for instance, tend to measure more of a reasoning ability. There's not any questions, for instance, on how to act morally in certain situations, there are no questions that involve creativity or intuition (mental powers essential to making any kind of art, for instance). How would you make a test that measured creativity, anyway? The problem with trying to measure intelligence at all is that some functions of the human mind don't avail themselves to quantitative measurement. Really, the potential for human intelligence is far-ranging; consider savants, for instance. There's also an aspect of intelligence called common sense which many of the "masses" possess, and many of the intellectual class do not.

The other aspect I mentioned is the psychological aspect. Our own perception of our own intelligence tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy; if I consider myself bad with logic (which I do), I'll probably continue to not really try to learn it (formal logic anyway), unless I really push myself outside of the bounds of that psychological belief about myself. Of course, that belief is based on experience. But, we create a picture in our minds of our own intelligence, and we tend not to try to alter that picture. In-grained beliefs about ourselves are hard to change. The other day I was covering a shift at my old job, and the new kid, a post-grad, hasn't learned how to close out the shop after working there for a year. I walked him through the process, and I could tell he was intimidated that I knew how after not having worked there for over a year, and I could tell that anytime I explained an aspect of the process, he ingested that not as useful info for future shifts, but as yet another voice telling him "you're dumb, you can't learn this basic shit". I could tell all of that, so I tried to be very positive about how I explained it, but that didn't matter. He believes he can't learn it. But he can, if he would only change his beliefs about his own intelligence. He's very good at all the other aspects of the job.

So all of that in mind, as far as trying to measure other people's intelligence, and figure out whether or not someone is intelligent, I don't even think it's worth spending much thought on. There are different sorts of intelligence. It seems to me that what we often define as intelligence is just the ability to reason clearly, or do tasks that involve complex processes. If you see the human mind as having a myriad of modes, of ways of thinking, then intelligence becomes a broader spectrum. Someone unable to reason clearly may be a brilliant artist. Someone who can't even carry a tune may be a brilliant scientist. Someone with a gift for writing may not have a gift for oratory or conversation. What's the point of even trying to figure out "who's smarter?"

Just italicize everything, like me. :P

As someone who's philosophy doesn't align with the mods, I've had plenty of fruitful discussions here, including my own topics. The key is to learn how to debate and discuss clearly and respectfully. Anyone can learn how to do that. If there's a liberal bias on this forum, it's because there's a liberal bias in philosophy. It's nothing to protest; use your energy by making cogent arguments for your ideas. Save the protest for if real, unjust censorship ever happens.

Intoxicating:

Excellent thoughts.