Agree. And the issue with having a 'how to' is that it already presupposes an approach and set of beliefs/answers which in turn implies a bracketing or dismissal of other approaches. There seems to be an arrogance implicit in teaching, in as much as it rests upon, 'I know something valuable others should know and I have a useful way of sharing this knowledge.' I'm not sure there is a way around this.

One of the advantages of method is that it's something written down which allows others to test it. And then the method can be refined by others. — Moliere

What is an example of such a method? Socratic? Phenomenological? Seems that a method is like a recipe by way of presuppositions.

Similarly, I can consider whether an action is moral from my viewpoint, and come up with a moral theory to explain this. However, if I were to consider the same action from everyone's viewpoint, then I would come up with a superior moral theory that just my viewpoint.

In both cases, perhaps the view from many viewpoints is a superior view to that from only one viewpoint. — PhilosophyRunner

I'd actually need to see an example of how such a superior moral theory arises in practice to accept this. To me this looks like you are just obtaining a range of perspectives and what's missing is how this leads to an overarching and still coherent moral position. Perhaps you could demonstrate the model in action with an example, say euthanasia?

I would also think that many acts can be called immoral without the need to consult other perspectives. (Although post-modernists might disagree). Take ethnic cleansing. We can say this is morally wrong. But the people who conduct the ethnic cleansing probably think they are doing 'difficult' work that will ultimately improve the world. Would we incorporate this perspective in any final formulation?

Everybody does and always will engage in philosophy in my view - and one need not have read a word of Plato or Decartes! — BigThoughtDropper

Yes, but as has already been said, the quality of much of it will be shithouse.

The problem for me is this OP hinges on a specific interpretation of one particular account of god and the afterlife. It's a fairly narrow frame in the scheme of human thought and theology and the case has not yet been made that there are gods, afterlives, heavens, free wills or inerrant, (interpretation free) scriptures... So how can we end up exploring what something is like when the thing itself is unknown, hidden/absent and perhaps unknowable?

This is incidental to your project and forgive my atheist lens. Seems to me you are trying to jump to premature conclusions. You are trying to second guess a moral system and rationale for a religion and a version of a god you haven't established as true yet. What you are likely to have at present is a subjective interpretation of one type of organized religion with some general accounts of heaven, free will and the nature of the divine. How does this provide you with foundational justification to make any overarching claims about how any of this functions in reality?

As Tom Waits sings: — Janus

Indeed. He also sings,

Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just god when he's drunk

Of course we don't want to distract this thread with disproportionate atheism.

The argument presented holds for divine absence and non-existence as well. — Fooloso4

Exactly. Atheists are often fond of divine hiddenness.

Let's explore the complexities of divine hiddenness and its implications for human free will and moral growth together. — gevgala

I find lack of compelling reasons to believe in the proposition that god's exist and it seems to me that their absence or 'hiddenness' reinforces this.

Does heaven's lack of divine hiddenness imply the person will not be able to exercise their free will (are they now a robot?) and will not be able to grow morally? Or are they somehow magically transformed upon entrance to heaven so that they don't need to grow morally or exercise their free will? — Art48

Naturally, we can't say anything meaningful about heavens or any afterlife scenarios. Who knows what transmogrifications take place should we ascend to be with god/s? Maybe the soul sheds its flaws and becomes pure... But frankly, what is left of a human being in heaven - are there sexual organs, hair, eyes, clothes, memories....? Why would will be necessary in heaven? Do we hang around up there making decisions? Is there crime in heaven; is there an equivalent to skid row...?

Christian beliefs suggest that sincere repentance and faith in Jesus can lead to salvation and entrance into heaven, regardless of the timing of the conversion. — gevgala

But why should we be concerned about what one of many hundreds of religions or sects has claimed via interpretations of some old books? If you were born in a different country, you would be Muslim or Hindu or Bahai, or Buddhist or Jain or Jew, etc. How did you arrive at your particular account of some alleged Christian beliefs - isn't this jumping the gun?

My thinking reflects my character or temperament and includes the idea that rather than attempting to exclude such idiosyncrasies they should be recognized and admitted as being at the heart of what philosophy is for me. This is not to say that they should be accepted as whatever they are, but rather as material to work with, to alter and develop. The goal is not some abstract ideal of universal objectivity but self-knowledge.

Here I would emphasize the productive aspect of knowledge - to make or produce. We must work with what we have. The question arises as to how best to work with and cultivate my rebellious and anarchic, anti-methodical temperament. — Fooloso4

I'm quite impressed with this and have not heard many people with a philosophical education make these points so clearly.

...remain open to what they might teach us, and to the possibility that there may be questions without answers and problems without solutions. — Fooloso4

Yes. And I've sometimes wondered if there are answers without problems...

Can you say a little more about your idea of a method - what might this look like on the ground (in dot points, perhaps)?

But intersubjective agreement is a very weak criterion, and it does not satisfy the belief that some intersubjective agreements are better than others. The quality of intersubjective agreement, taken in itself, can only be a matter of quantity (i.e. how many people agree). Once we begin to vet the subjects, we have introduced a second notion (expertise) that really goes beyond the simple idea of intersubjective agreement. — Leontiskos

This would be rich material for its own thread. Perhaps when you get back. What we also need is someone properly steeped in post-structuralist thinking to unpack the intersubjective and the idea of knowledge and expertise.

(Note I've reverted back to my previous username) — Wayfarer

Noted. In my mind you were always Wayfarer... however I am partial to the novel Don Quixote.

Boy, you posit some provocative and interesting questions. :up:

No, they are not equal, but they are equally intersubjective. — Leontiskos

Agree.

The appeal to "competence" is likely a quasi-knowledge claim. — Leontiskos

Yes, we seem to dip in and out of various epistemologies.

Firstly, in current science, there are many huge interpretive conundrums, for instance the debates about string theory and the multiverse, and whether theories of same ought to be testable in principle — Quixodian

Sure. Aspects of science are also speculative and theoretical.

What really irked me was the demand that 'intellectual honesty dictates' that I acknowledge that common-sense attitude as the arbiter for the truth or otherwise of Buddhist epistemology- exactly as Leontiskos described — Quixodian

Got ya.

As Quixodian has pointed out, this sort of claim is circular. It is only demonstrable to those with the relevant presuppositions and training, and whether such presuppositions and training count as competence merely depends on who you ask. — Leontiskos

While I think this is largely true is it not problematic? Clearly presuppositions are shared by everyone from Nazi's to Jehovah's Witnesses. Are all presuppositions equal just because they may be believed in with equal confidence?

Cool. Thanks.

The vast majority of our scientific knowledge and beliefs are faith-based. The percentage of people who have first-hand knowledge or understanding of any given scientific theory is slim to none, and yet these same people will often know the names and the gist of these theories and will assent to them as being true. — Leontiskos

I can see this argument. Nevertheless, unlike faith based entities (such as gods), there is evidence available for scientific knowledge which people who have education can access and verify and demonstrate to work. I suspect that aligning this testable, demonstrable, if arcane knowledge with faith can lead to conceptual problems elsewhere. Thoughts?

When I catch a plane, a Christian apologist might argue that I have faith the plane will fly. It's true I know little about the engineering or piloting component of flight. However I would say this is having a reasonable confidence the plane will fly. I know planes fly. The evidence is overwhelming that most do so safely. I know there are engineers and pilots and that they have training etc. I don't see this as a matter of faith.

But if positivism replaces metaphysics and then "denies that there is metaphysics," hasn't it invalidated metaphysics? I agree that not all positivism aims at direct invalidation of metaphysics, but I would also want to say that denying the existence of metaphysics counts as a significant form of invalidation. — Leontiskos

Quick question: isn't every position metaphysical? While positivism might maintain that the 'supernatural' is a non-starter (whatever the supernatural turns out to be), isn't it the case that positivism rests on a metaphysical presupposition that reality can be understood, even that naïve realism is true (depending on the form of positivism)?

In my opinion the attempt to start with a method is antithetical to philosophy. It raises a whole host of questions, including - Why a method? Why this method and not some other? — Fooloso4

That seems sound. But sans method can we articulate any kind of approach without being at least partially subject to this concern?

Do you have to have experienced non-depression to know you're depressed? — RogueAI

A provocative question.

We all think we’re special. We usually get our sense of specialness from some characteristic we take pride in. We make claims — to ourselves and to others — about these characteristics. We can go most of our lives telling ourselves a story built around such claims.

But exactly when is it complete bullshit? — Mikie

Interesting. I can only respond with tenuous relevance. I'm not sure I agree that we all think we are special. Many do. Many do not. Some are suicidal with self-loathing or self-denigration. I also sure that many a boundless ego is overcompensating for feelings of inadequacy.

Personally I would say that it is healthy to think we are special in as much as we are the beginning and end of our experience with the world. If we don't treat our unique subjective experience as special - take care of our health, be grateful, be prudent in business, kind to others, etc - we end up suffering and our loved ones suffer with us.

But you mean something different here. Personally I don't know many (if any) who think they are 'the best' at anything. I've never dreamed that big. I would aspire to be competent in and enjoy certain activities. That's always been good enough for me, as I tend to enjoy the experience of doing more than the end result. While I think it's healthy to want to improve at things, the goal is to be the best seems forced and doesn't resonate with me. There's something exhilarating about being a limited, flawed being who makes the most of what they've got.

That which you would do if you had the combined perspective of everyone in society, is the moral thing to do. Just food for thought. — PhilosophyRunner

I think there's merit in Rawls thought experiment. The only thing I wonder about it is that it doesn't teach morality so much as use self-interest as an organising principle.

:up:

What standard can we agree on to judge what is philosophy and what is not? At the very least a a kind of thesis has to be presented and argued for. — Tobias

I've been wondering about this for some time. I've decided that many people have a philosophical imagination and are fond of asking philosophical questions and this may of itself be doing philosophy. But I suspect in most cases, this will also be 'entry level' philosophy - having fun in the shallow end of the pool. Nothing wrong with it, but I suspect unless one is a Wittgensteinian level genius, one is going to continually reinvent the wheel, become lost in one's independent investigations and generally fail to benefit from significant extant philosophical wisdom.

So I was responding to a specific point about the average person ‘asking questions’ about life and how philosophical this might be.

Sorry, I’m not sure what your point is.

These are the sentiments I see expressed over and over again. But what I would point out is that we can never really get away from doing philosophy. This discussion topic and the OP is itself, doing philosophy. By asking if philosophy is still relevant, we are engaging in philosophy. Philosophy means "the love of wisdom" and at its core is about thinking deeply and asking questions and following the argument where it leads, and that is always going to be relevant to the human experience. — GRWelsh

Except that this doesn't seem to gauge whether the philosophy being conducted is any good or not, whether it is systematic or not, whether it builds purposefully on established traditions or not, whether it has learned from mistakes or not. Philosophy may come down to 'thinking about thinking' but if it isn't taking any notice of previous work, just how philosophically useful is it? I'm sure there are any number of neophytes out there who imagine that have discovered solipsism and relativism and will likely remain energetically ignorant of any previous discourse from the tradition.

Thank you "Tom Storm" and "Philosophism" for your replies. You have given me much to think about. So, is my perceived reality actually real or not? Do I have free will or not? Am I right to be a vegan or not? Am I right to be an agnostic or not? How would I know? — Truth Seeker

Answer: you don't know. Although this answer isn't satisfying to some, I think you just have to go with your intuitions. You can have reasonable confidence that you share a reality with others and that there are implications for how that reality is shared. Suffering seems real enough when experienced, so perhaps go with a worldview that works to prevent causing suffering (you can include being a vegan).

When it comes to gods I can't think of any good reasons to believe in them other than old books/traditions. My experience of the world does not include gods in it and, so the arguments (ontological, cosmological, from morality, experience, etc) are not especially relevant.

For me the experience of being human is living with uncertainty and knowing that much of what we believe or hold as true are constructions of mind and culture. I think this can only make life more interesting.

Extending this, I put forth the following bit of speculative thinking. If a person were able to see the stick from every possible perspective (humanly impossible I know), then the combination of all those views, is the objective view. — PhilosophyRunner

That's an enticing frame. It would seem, however that when it comes to a simple object like a stick this could make sense. But how does one apply this to more complex notions of truth in human life - morality, politics, art? Is it possible to see every possible perspective and how does one unify this, or not? How many possible perspectives are there and does truth become meaningless when it is prodigiously multifaceted? Thoughts?

One has to learn how to look. Anyone living in a large cosmopolitan city has inexhaustible worlds within worlds at their disposal, if they learn how to see them. This is the most effective sort of nomadism, the kind that can be achieved by staying in place. — Joshs

Very nice. I missed this when you posted it. I have often said this too. I can take a walk in my city or get on public transport and just by adjusting how I choose to regard things, I am suddenly in a new city, an unfamiliar one - even if I have been through this way hundreds of times before.

There's a richness to this encounter if you (and I am struggling to articulate this) are open to seeing and set aside your preconceptions and anticipations and bring a different form of curiosity to the experience. So much of travel to me seems to be an imaginative act that takes place within us. Maybe you can tidy up the wording for me?

How do you establish the truth of the correspondence theory of truth?

You do philosophy for the reasons people invented philosophy in the first place. And you like "Annie Hall." — T Clark

That's generous of you. Thanks. (love Annie Hall!) I guess I feel in philosophy there is so much to know and understand and so little time, that the situation is almost hopeless for someone like me who hasn't read significant texts and fully understood the ramifications of key concepts. But the good thing is life continues and I am content doing my thing, thinking my thoughts... I'm just aware that every supposition and belief I hold can likely be undermined by robust philosophical reasoning, much of which I don't fully comprehend. It's the conundrum of the layperson.

How would I calculate what percentage of certainty I assign to things such as the objective existence of my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the universe? — Truth Seeker

Good question. I probably wouldn't even begin to go there. I am either convinced of something or not. Percentages add nothing. What is the difference between being certain and being 100% certain? Adding that percentage seems to be a scientistic way of saying, 'I have no doubts'. But so what? What is the difference between 100% and 95% certain? They are functionally the same in as much as we carry on and incorporate that 'certainty' (a bad word) into our presuppositions for life. I see no value in graduating certainty.

I have never subscribed to '100% certainly' style language for anything. My beliefs are based on 'reasonable confidence' via the best evidence I have available at the time. I take it as a given that we don't have access to any ultimate style truth and that truth is itself an abstraction which looks different in different contexts. We don't really need any more than this to go about our business.

To start at philosophy one should....

1. Read a philosophy text and attempt to understand it.
2. Read a different philosophy text, even by the same author, and attempt to understand it.
3. Compare and contrast the two texts. If able write some things down to attempt to solidify your thoughts. Share it with anyone interested!
4. Repeat, if desired, or add a rule. (Purposefully ambiguous) — Moliere

Interesting idea. I suspect different personalities need different approaches. I would struggle to finish most texts as they are either largely incomprehensible or dull (to me). Obtaining a useful reading of a great work is not something you can readily do unassisted.

I think a good beginning might be to get an overarching sense of what philosophy does, the questions it examines and then perhaps look more closely at some matters - morality or aesthetics, say, and see what some key thinkers have said. I might then start reading some papers and gradually work my way to a full text.

I would not attempt to actually 'do ' philosophy, I don't have the expertise. I think for most people it is enough to be aware of some of the central questions and have some idea about the direction philosophy can take in resolving or dissolving such questions. And perhaps even develop some sympathies for one approach or another, recognizing such views are likely to be tentative and incomplete.

1. All we ever have is beliefs.

2. We [ mostly ] use 'true' to say that we have or share a belief. — plaque flag

I find your approach interesting. I remember someone saying something like truth is subjectivity we share together. I guess that expresses the notion of the often maligned intersubjectivity.

Like many, I don't think we can ever arrive at an Archimedean point - a value free, prefect position of revealed reality.

How do you classify various types of truth claim? I guess truth is an abstraction and isn't a property which looks identical wherever it is said to exist. To say Jesus is the truth is one thing. To say technology via science provides working mobile phones is quite another type of claim.

:up:

This is the Blind Spot, which the authors show lies behind our scientific conundrums about time and the origin of the universe, quantum physics, life, AI and the mind, consciousness, and Earth as a planetary system." That is a salient diagnosis of the modern 'problem of knowledge' in my opinion. But if you tell me you don't see the point, then I won't press it! — Quixodian

It seems a reasonable point - and no doubt there are numerous complexities and implications involved, but isn't this notion ultimately similar to the basis of phenomenology? And even Nietzsche's view that truth/reality is perspectival. I would have thought overall a relatively common philosophical presupposition, even if it is antithetical to some accounts of science, say, as understanding reality as it really is.

I'd say that a person's personal Jesus incorporates some of the religious community's picture of Jesus.
I think we agree. How we decide to count the number is not important. — Art48

I agree but you did write -

led me to the idea that there are two very different types of Jesus: 1) New Testament Jesus and 2) personal Jesus — Art48

I have often been struck by a believer's impersonal Jesus - the important thing for me is the frequent lack of individual commitment - believers so often do not arrive at a picture of Jesus through deliberation, but often passively receive their messiah from a third party who did all the hard thinking and came to all the conclusions. Jesus is against homosexuality only in as much as Preacher Smith or Dad is against homosexuality.

In my discussions with Fundamentalists, I recall again and again believers with almost knowledge of the Bible and an account of Jesus so stunted and derivative that it scarcely counts as Christianity.

I try to look through the surface associations of terminology with my X-ray structuralist goggles. The passionate communist is as 'spiritually' motivated as the born again Christian on fire with Jesus.

The heroic is the numinous. Or call it the ego ideal. Many phrases are good enough once the structural role is grasped. Stirner called it the sacred and the highest essence. It's as if we are programmed to decide upon and enact a heroism. — plaque flag

That's a fascinating notion and rings true for me.

But yes, idealism has difficulty in avoiding solipsism, as I’ve explained previously. It usually needs God’s help. — Banno

Well, as Simon Blackburn has said, whatever our theoretical metaphysical commitments, we're almost all realists as soon as we walk out the door.

Schopenhauer is vociferously atheist. — Quixodian

I guess in his case 'will' is a kind of god surrogate in as much as it holds our shared reality together. Like Kastrup's Mind at Large. The fact that will is understood as blind and striving (unlike God who is judgmental and aggrieved) doesn't mean it isn't the metaphysical source of transcendence and unity. Any thoughts on this?

Reflecting on the incidents led me to the idea that there are two very different types of Jesus: 1) New Testament Jesus and 2) personal Jesus. New Testament Jesus is the Jesus of scripture, the character described in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and other New Testament books. Personal Jesus is the Jesus as imagined by some person. Everyone who believes in Jesus believes in their own personal Jesus. The relation of the believer and personal Jesus is identical to the relation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to Sherlock Holmes; it’s identical to the relation of J. K. Rowling to Harry Potter. — Art48

I suspect that there's a third Jesus - that of the religious community a person belongs to. Often based on a priest's or preacher's version. Many followers are too 'frightened' to formulate their own notions and surrender to the account of a compelling and authoritative apologist or cleric. This may then come to be seen as personal Jesus, but is not one based on a significant and original interpretative act and is generally shared intersubjectivity with a religious community. In most cases, your Daves or Anns do not arrive at their Jesus without strong, persuasive influences and regular reinforcement.

I think the importance of major thinkers consists in just a very few insights central to the human condition, and the rest, all the arguments designed to justify those ideas are relatively tedious, obsessively driven filler. Of course, I am speaking only for myself.

When I read, and I do read a lot, but in a very scattered fashion, I read mainly for aesthetic pleasure. I need a story, rather than a complex argument, to hold my attention; I just have little confidence that following along, sloggin' it, with a complicated argument will yield any fruit worth the effort in the end. Life is short... — Janus

This is very interesting to me. I tend to read to catch up with things and I think my reading for aesthetic pleasure is over for the time being.

My view of complex arguments and 'high theory' is that they make almost no difference to how I live my life. I am not an academic, nor do I feel the need to remain up to date. I also don't have the disposition to follow complex arguments across scores of intractable pages. I find I'm more interested in people's presuppositions rather than the vast edifices they often erect upon these foundations.

But supposing there was a god, can we all agree that this world is sufficiently evil enough to account for an evil god? — schopenhauer1

It seems an obvious inference to make, although I would not use the word 'evil' - it's too loaded. Bracketing those supposed 'omnis', we might also posit from this observation of our lethal, broken world that any god responsible is limited and flawed - perhaps it means well but creation has its own ideas...

But frankly the world, with all its chaos, ugliness and suffering also seems exactly the kind of world you would have if there were no deities responsible or in charge.

Needless to say, there are number of games we can play to rationalise this situation - both as atheists or theists.

The salient question for me seems to be a different one - what kind of world would we expect to see if there were gods?

I think it's much broader and more diffuse than that - it's rejection of whatever is considered 'the supernatural' or even 'the sacred' (or arguably the identification of 'the sacred' with 'the natural') — Quixodian

Yes, I’ve addressed that. I know many atheists who accept astrology, ghosts, Bigfoot, etc.

I also know atheist idealists.

I think atheism is less totalising that some of the famous polemicists would have us think. Maybe it’s more the secular humanist skeptics?

I think ucarr is correct in identifying the conviction that life arises from non-life (abiogenesis) is central to that belief system. — Quixodian

Many hold to this. I wish more folks would just say ‘who knows’ and just go back to being useful. Life and consciousness are a mystery for now. It may well be the product of natural phenomena but who can say? Would we utterly reject this and insert a gods ‘holding statement’ to take care of it? Sounds like a ‘gaps’ problem.

I'm not atheist, although I have no doubt my Christian forbears would believe me so. — Quixodian

I think you probably are. What you are not is a scientistic materialist.

Would you welcome god(s) to break bread with you before making such offer to fundamentalists? — ucarr

I’m always happy to accept guests as long as they are courteous and kind. Even fundamentalists, of which my Grandmother was one.