I don’t understand that concept at all. To me this is completely about things being true or false.If things do – if at least some things do – have intrinsic meaning or nature at all, then at least some essentialism is true. Ifnothing has intrinsic meaning or nature, then existentialism is true.
Thoughts?
How would one demonstrate essentialism to be true? How would one demonstrate intrinsic meaning or nature?
If one relies on theological statements as the foundation, how does one demonstrate that those statements are true to someone who thinks differently or holds a different theology or no theology?
As some of these might be on the level of first principles, I don’t know how easy or possibly it might be to demonstrate those, any more than morality (one could always say that it’s just what people have taught you, or something to do with brain chemistry, etc.) or even that one is not a brain in a jar experiencing illusions.
How does one determine whether something is on the level of first principles?
Looking over the thread, I notice that you seem to find essentialism true, in contrast to existentialism. If essentialism is at the level of first principles, it seems valuable to understand how one got to that conclusion. Or if one has concluded wrongly.
One can try to deduce first principles but... they're first principles. One can always claim they're illusory. One can point to things that seem to suggest that they're real, but it's like logic or Reason itself--I would say that first principles are the things on which everything else depends. I can point to the great testimony of mankind throughout history that takes for granted that things are real, and especially (but not exclusively) Christianity teaching so.
Morality is cultural and does depend on brain chemistry.
I don't mean what some cultures can perceive about, or blind spots they may have regarding, morality--nor what blind spots our brain chemistry might have due to some kind of mental impairment--I mean right and wrong itself, full stop.
That I know aren't true. That I have coherent justified true belief aren't true. Or that I can't have coherent justified true belief are true.
I think of the three options, the last one is best, because it doesn't demand the reader accept that you definitively "know" things, or that your own beliefs are "justified" or "true."
I believe, as is likely visible, in essentialism (of at least some kinds), rather than existentialism. But in discussion or debate, even if I were on some absolute level convinced that it was absolute truth, with no chance I could ever be wrong about it, I would still try to say "I believe X" rather than "I know X is true" or "I have coherent justified true belief that X is true."
The three options deconstruct to the same meaning. Knowledge is coherent justified true belief. Knowing is coherent justified true believing.
I know that essentialism is not coherent justified true belief. We can get in to an infinite regress, or do what mathematicians do and sum, wrap it all up, integrate it to infinity. I believe that is more knowing, to say the least, than I believe in. I believe that, I know that, nature, being, does not need unnatural, essential explanations. I don't believe in that. I don't believe in nature, being, not needing unnatural, essential explanations. It doesn't. Except for most believers.
Moving on can be seen to make my point. Previously you could not discuss this. I feel I cannot say more. I feel in the thinnest ice.
I'm genuinely lost here at this point. If this is in reference to issues and such from a few months back that led to difficulties on the Ship (I'm guessing this is what the "thinnest ice" is a reference to), I don't want to make things difficult.
@ChastMastr, my friend, you couldn't make things difficult. I am the author of my own misfortune.
I woke up this morning realising in deep cognitive dissonance what a fool I've been. I feel the need to apologize, too late, in the Styx. So I must.
We are going to disagree about you “knowing” these things. Again, “I believe” really really helps when you were having a disagreement with someone rather than just stamping your foot and saying that you know it. Regardless though, if I am one of the people to whom an apology is being given (in the Styx), I will accept that. And if not, well, I wish you well regardless. Peace.
If you'd care to elaborate how you disagree, that would be brilliant. Otherwise it's just dispositional. Can you explain where my knowing is wrong? Where my knowing isn't knowing? And I'm not stamping my foot. I'm being accurate and honest. I know what I know. And how.
And of course you're included. Regardless. Peace.
It's not a matter of disposition--I believe X. You believe Y. If I were going to talk with you about what I believe, I will at least try to say "I believe X," not I *KNOW* X. Because it's aggressive and pushy and rude in a discussion when two people disagree. It literally doesn't matter what X and Y are. If I had my mind opened to perceive the great Platonic Forms, in a way that I would not be able to deny no matter how I tried, I would still, just to communicate with someone without pushing them away, try to say "I believe I have genuinely perceived the great Platonic Forms." I know I probably come up short in this effort sometimes. But if Person A and Person B disagree on basically anything at all on which rational people of good will may conceivably disagree, if they want to have any chance of the other person listening to them, then I believe it is best for them to use what are called "I statements." "I believe this." "I think that." "It seems to me this." Even "It appears true to me, as true as anything can be, that." "I would stake my life on this."
I do not feel free to respond to this, as it involves form perichoretic with substance. Unless you openly invite me to do so. And we walk on naked together in this dialogue.
I do not feel free to respond to this, as it involves form perichoretic with substance. Unless you openly invite me to do so. And we walk on naked together in this dialogue.
Peace my friend.
I’m sorry, I’m lost here. What are you trying to say? If you don’t feel free to respond to this, okay, but the rest is close to incomprehensible to me. I’m hypothesizing that you don’t feel able to respond without risking getting in trouble. (If that’s the case, just say so. I don’t want you to get in trouble.)
I do not feel free to respond to this, as it involves form perichoretic with substance. Unless you openly invite me to do so. And we walk on naked together in this dialogue.
Peace my friend.
I’m sorry, I’m lost here. What are you trying to say? If you don’t feel free to respond to this, okay, but the rest is close to incomprehensible to me. I’m hypothesizing that you don’t feel able to respond without risking getting in trouble. (If that’s the case, just say so. I don’t want you to get in trouble.)
I'll get in to trouble if I trouble you further : )
If there is a God in the way Scripture describes him, doesn't that mean whatever exists is always perceived? By God, at least. And remembered, which gives creation some form of immortality regardless of what happens to it in the end. Though to be sure, I hope for more than that.
Which of them and the subsequent 'Timberrrrr!' were silent?
All of the them - after all, I was ending the corporal phase of their existence.
The perception, consciousness and existence of trees seems rather more life-affirming, life-aware and life-sustaining than the perception, consciousness and existence of human beings.
I think that if there weren't a reality independent of our perception we couldn't frame the question.
It's a fairly basic level of intelligence for humans to realise that we can see and perceived things that other people can't (dolphins and chimpanzees can manage it as well). From which the extension of the idea to other people see things that we can't, and there are things that nobody can perceive are obvious next steps.
I like the use of "obvious" for things that no-one can perceive.
Even if there is an independent reality, the frame for our questions can only come from within our awareness. But to the extent that's it's a thought experiment, there might be something about our imagination's frame of reference.
And of course there is the spiritual and aesthetic aspect:
These things, these things were here, and but the beholder
Wanting; which two when they once meet
The heart rears wings bold and bolder
And hurls for him, O half hurls earth for him off under his feet.
The position that things only exist in relation to human beings has I think undesirable consequences for the natural world.
One of the reasons for delight in wild animals, or plants even, is just the appreciation of the fact that they're going about their business with no reference to us.
With only dim awareness of the smog of the anthropocene slowly smothering us all.
Which of them and the subsequent 'Timberrrrr!' were silent?
All of the them - after all, I was ending the corporal phase of their existence.
What?! You didn't see their inner Munch screams!? There again, in my unwritten masterwork, 'Sap', it's no big deal, mainly, as time operates hundreds of times faster for them. A year a day. They see us coming.
@Martin54 :My being hungry and tired and conditionally loving can't affect the laws of physics.
Well Martin, maybe that is because there are different realities from empirical ones..or perhaps, Plato knew nothing.
Sure he took it to the nth degree but, out of interest, in your non essentialist scheme, you must deny these things as somehow 'unreal' since they cannot be examined via the scientific method. But
scientism is fundamentally unsatisfying..it has sharp corners that deny our need for cuddles.
And, as someone interposed above, in the realm of 'quanta' you actually lose location of place at some point suggesting (maybe) that what we perceive as physicality is really some kind of simulation created by an 'essential' being who is not part of it. Biblically this is Christ, incarnated as a man but originally demonstrated as I AM in Exodus. I think this is Aquinas' theology?
EE Cummings reflects our state of awareness yet unknowing in his haiku.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow,
glazed wth rainwater,
beside the white chickens.
I know that there are different realities of nature forever beyond our ken, the multiverse of 5D mbranes clashing in hyperspace perhaps. Plato no more knew essence, Forms, Ideas than the cat. Because they aren't real. The science I know couldn't possibly deny our need for cuddles, it explains it.
You lose location when you concentrate on velocity and vice versa. I've no idea how that mathematical fact, where those variables can be abstracted, suggests we're shadows of something more substantial, in God the Son's skull.
More than 17 syllables in 5, 7, 5 pattern there.
Yep, I shouldn’t post from memory mea culpa.
The loss of location may be explained by others but maybe the point where what we define as physical blurs into something unknown. Is it a mathematical fact or the discovery of a point where empirical knowledge breaks down? If so then is physicality a simulation and if so that implies an constructor. No egg without a chicken. The IAM factor.
@Martin54 :My being hungry and tired and conditionally loving can't affect the laws of physics.
Well Martin, maybe that is because there are different realities from empirical ones..or perhaps, Plato knew nothing.
Sure he took it to the nth degree but, out of interest, in your non essentialist scheme, you must deny these things as somehow 'unreal' since they cannot be examined via the scientific method. But
scientism is fundamentally unsatisfying..it has sharp corners that deny our need for cuddles.
And, as someone interposed above, in the realm of 'quanta' you actually lose location of place at some point suggesting (maybe) that what we perceive as physicality is really some kind of simulation created by an 'essential' being who is not part of it. Biblically this is Christ, incarnated as a man but originally demonstrated as I AM in Exodus. I think this is Aquinas' theology?
EE Cummings reflects our state of awareness yet unknowing in his haiku.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow,
glazed wth rainwater,
beside the white chickens.
I know that there are different realities of nature forever beyond our ken, the multiverse of 5D mbranes clashing in hyperspace perhaps. Plato no more knew essence, Forms, Ideas than the cat. Because they aren't real. The science I know couldn't possibly deny our need for cuddles, it explains it.
You lose location when you concentrate on velocity and vice versa. I've no idea how that mathematical fact, where those variables can be abstracted, suggests we're shadows of something more substantial, in God the Son's skull.
More than 17 syllables in 5, 7, 5 pattern there.
Yep, I shouldn’t post from memory mea culpa.
The loss of location may be explained by others but maybe the point where what we define as physical blurs into something unknown. Is it a mathematical fact or the discovery of a point where empirical knowledge breaks down? If so then is physicality a simulation and if so that implies an constructor. No egg without a chicken. The IAM factor.
It doesn't arise. There is absolutely no rational need to go there. It's a mathematical fact and that is the discovery of a point where empirical knowledge breaks down, is deconstructed and has to be reconstructed. Uncertainty is an intrinsic part of empirical knowledge. There is no magic in the uncertainty. Except between our ears as our mesoscopic nature abhors uncertainty. So we fill it with an even more monstrous EGO.
If there is a God in the way Scripture describes him, doesn't that mean whatever exists is always perceived? By God, at least. And remembered, which gives creation some form of immortality regardless of what happens to it in the end. Though to be sure, I hope for more than that.
Bishop Berkeley? Is that you?
I assume I’ve crossed paths with another Great Mind, and am about to drown in two inches of philosophy. Pity that it’s mostly a closed book to me. I assume he said what i said, then?
I do not feel free to respond to this, as it involves form perichoretic with substance. Unless you openly invite me to do so. And we walk on naked together in this dialogue.
Peace my friend.
I’m sorry, I’m lost here. What are you trying to say? If you don’t feel free to respond to this, okay, but the rest is close to incomprehensible to me. I’m hypothesizing that you don’t feel able to respond without risking getting in trouble. (If that’s the case, just say so. I don’t want you to get in trouble.)
I'll get in to trouble if I trouble you further : )
I don’t understand that concept at all. To me this is completely about things being true or false.If things do – if at least some things do – have intrinsic meaning or nature at all, then at least some essentialism is true. Ifnothing has intrinsic meaning or nature, then existentialism is true.
Thoughts?
How would one demonstrate essentialism to be true? How would one demonstrate intrinsic meaning or nature?
If one relies on theological statements as the foundation, how does one demonstrate that those statements are true to someone who thinks differently or holds a different theology or no theology?
As some of these might be on the level of first principles, I don’t know how easy or possibly it might be to demonstrate those, any more than morality (one could always say that it’s just what people have taught you, or something to do with brain chemistry, etc.) or even that one is not a brain in a jar experiencing illusions.
How does one determine whether something is on the level of first principles?
Looking over the thread, I notice that you seem to find essentialism true, in contrast to existentialism. If essentialism is at the level of first principles, it seems valuable to understand how one got to that conclusion. Or if one has concluded wrongly.
One can try to deduce first principles but... they're first principles. One can always claim they're illusory. One can point to things that seem to suggest that they're real, but it's like logic or Reason itself--I would say that first principles are the things on which everything else depends. I can point to the great testimony of mankind throughout history that takes for granted that things are real, and especially (but not exclusively) Christianity teaching so.
Morality is cultural and does depend on brain chemistry.
I don't mean what some cultures can perceive about, or blind spots they may have regarding, morality--nor what blind spots our brain chemistry might have due to some kind of mental impairment--I mean right and wrong itself, full stop.
First Principles and Essentialism:
Sorry, @ChastMastr I'm not a philosopher and am not used to using formal terms like "first principles."
In physics, a calculation is said to be from first principles, or ab initio, if it starts directly at the level of established laws of physics and does not make assumptions such as empirical model and fitting parameters.
because established laws of physics are conclusions drawn from much observation and testing.
So, there seems to be some sort of way to establish what principles are First Principles. I mean beyond saying: Those are first principles.
As I understand it, essentialism as a matter of first principles is regularly exploited. I’m wary. The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, for example, sees one’s sex as essential to one’s being, thus making sex a first principle, no? They also make a great number of other undeniable statements about essentially sexed people and their relationships to each other, which subordinate me in my femaleness to all men.
The question bears a great deal of weight for me. How does one determine what a First Principle is, or what is essential to a thing – I mean without just saying it is that way?
Logic and Reason:
I’m not sure what you meant by:
but it's like logic or Reason itself--I would say that first principles are the things on which everything else depends. “
I understand logic and reason as tools, or mental processes, not first principles. They provide a way we look at ideas or observations and work through to conclusions about them. There are, of course, other tools we can use to understand what we observe but they require a different posture or disposition toward what is perceived.
Either/Or:
You mentioned in your OP:
To me this is completely about things being true or false. If things do – if at least some things do – have intrinsic meaning or nature at all, then at least some essentialism is true. If nothing has intrinsic meaning or nature, then existentialism is true.
In order to know whether essentialism is true or whether existentialism is true, there must be some way to establish this. Don’t you think? What would be the first principles? And again, how would we recognize them as such?
If only essentialism OR existentialism can be true, but not both, I’m not sure where “some” fits in.
Right and Wrong:
We are talking about the same thing, but understand it differently.
My Anabaptist friend and I both agree that “killing is wrong.” We mean very different things by that.
Our different cultures as well as our conformity to them determines what is Right and Wrong in this case.
If there is a God in the way Scripture describes him, doesn't that mean whatever exists is always perceived? By God, at least. And remembered, which gives creation some form of immortality regardless of what happens to it in the end. Though to be sure, I hope for more than that.
Bishop Berkeley? Is that you?
I assume I’ve crossed paths with another Great Mind, and am about to drown in two inches of philosophy. Pity that it’s mostly a closed book to me. I assume he said what i said, then?
This made sense to me:
In physics, a calculation is said to be from first principles, or ab initio, if it starts directly at
the level of established laws of physics and does not make assumptions such as empirical model and fitting parameters.
because established laws of physics are conclusions drawn from much observation and testing.
So, there seems to be some sort of way to establish what principles are First Principles. I mean beyond saying: Those are first principles.
If you look up higher in the Wikipedia article, you will see
In philosophy and science, a first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. First principles in philosophy are from first cause[1] attitudes and taught by Aristotelians, and nuanced versions of first principles are referred to as postulates by Kantians.[2]
And there's a lot more under the Philosophy heading.
As I understand it, essentialism as a matter of first principles is regularly exploited.
I would argue that the abuse does not abolish the use.
The question bears a great deal of weight for me. How does one determine what a First Principle is, or what is essential to a thing – I mean without just saying it is that way?
That gets thorny, especially perhaps these days. Going back to Wikipedia:
In philosophy and science, a first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.
You say here
I understand logic and reason as tools, or mental processes, not first principles. They provide a way we look at ideas or observations and work through to conclusions about them.
I would say the validity of logic, and of Reason as a whole, are true, and are first principles on which our ability to draw any conclusions about anything whatsoever depend. I'd also add "we can, at least to some degree, perceive reality, however imperfectly, rather than being brains in jars or the like."
If only essentialism OR existentialism can be true, but not both, I’m not sure where “some” fits in.
When I said, "If things do – if at least some things do – have intrinsic meaning or nature at all, then at least some essentialism is true," that allows for some things not to have intrinsic meaning or nature, or at least not the same way. One could for example say that a tree has its own special, transcendent tree-nature, but that a crumpled up piece of paper is more "stuff" that came from a tree, and that there isn't some Platonic ideal of a crumpled up piece of paper that there would be for a tree. (I actually tend toward everything resonating in some way with archetypal Platonic things, personally, but I'm talking about essentialism in general, not just my own thoughts about it.) Or to take some of your concerns about gender and sex, one could postulate that human beings have an essential, intrinsic nature, but that "male" and "female" are not intrinsic aspects of that. (Again, this is not my own position, but it is a possible one.)
Our different cultures as well as our conformity to them determines what is Right and Wrong in this case.
I would say that it determines your views of Right and Wrong, but aren't you both trying to find out and adhere to what is really Right vs really Wrong? Like people trying to see a mountain clearly with telescopes--the mountain is real, but our ideas of it can be imperfect, and we're trying to see that mountain with the lenses we have as best we can?
The only intrinsic first principle of philosophy is that it is worth thinking about. Everything else (including what "it" is) can be said to be an opinion.
Of course in standard conversation we have to accept a certain amount of other prepositions as fact otherwise there's nothing to talk about.
The only intrinsic first principle of philosophy is that it is worth thinking about. Everything else (including what "it" is) can be said to be an opinion.
Of course in standard conversation we have to accept a certain amount of other prepositions as fact otherwise there's nothing to talk about.
Or agree to work with those propositions as fact at the time for the purpose of discussion. However questioning the foundational nature of propositions, or even rejecting them outright, strikes me as entirely valid as well.
This made sense to me:
In physics, a calculation is said to be from first principles, or ab initio, if it starts directly at
the level of established laws of physics and does not make assumptions such as empirical model and fitting parameters.
because established laws of physics are conclusions drawn from much observation and testing.
So, there seems to be some sort of way to establish what principles are First Principles. I mean beyond saying: Those are first principles.
If you look up higher in the Wikipedia article, you will see
In philosophy and science, a first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. First principles in philosophy are from first cause[1] attitudes and taught by Aristotelians, and nuanced versions of first principles are referred to as postulates by Kantians.[2]
And there's a lot more under the Philosophy heading.
Indeed, there is a lot more. Some of which I found contradictory, depending on the discipline with multiple variations among philosophers.
The reliance on axioms and assumptions in the definition is dissatisfying to me, unless one is willing to hold those as place-holders for foundational knowledge with the understanding that what is built upon those foundational place-holders is subject to change if the foundational place-holders are shown to be faulty.
There are long histories so-called first principles based on wrong assumptions.
What are the first principles you are relying on?
And on what basis should I agree with you that they are?
The question bears a great deal of weight for me. How does one determine what a First Principle is, or what is essential to a thing – I mean without just saying it is that way?
That gets thorny, especially perhaps these days. Going back to Wikipedia:
In philosophy and science, a first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.
How thorny, really, is it though? The assumption that women are essentially different from men in some way is based on subjective cultural assumptions. They are/have been given the status of universal truths, undeniably obvious first principles, based on the the "common knowledge" of cultural assumptions.
How does one really recognize the fundamental essence of something?
Or decide what comprises that essence (or those essences)?
I understand logic and reason as tools, or mental processes, not first principles. They provide a way we look at ideas or observations and work through to conclusions about them.
I would say the validity of logic, and of Reason as a whole, are true, and are first principles on which our ability to draw any conclusions about anything whatsoever depend. I'd also add "we can, at least to some degree, perceive reality, however imperfectly, rather than being brains in jars or the like."
The validity of logic and reason as adequate processes for analysis is dependent on their ability to come to coherent, consistent conclusions and are subject to the problem of GIGO.
Many things that people hold to be true cannot be concluded simply from logical or rational processes.
And, finally for this section and moment, there is not universal cultural agreement about the validity of logic and reason as the best or most reliable tools for telling us anything.
If only essentialism OR existentialism can be true, but not both, I’m not sure where “some” fits in.
When I said, "If things do – if at least some things do – have intrinsic meaning or nature at all, then at least some essentialism is true," that allows for some things not to have intrinsic meaning or nature, or at least not the same way. One could for example say that a tree has its own special, transcendent tree-nature, but that a crumpled up piece of paper is more "stuff" that came from a tree, and that there isn't some Platonic ideal of a crumpled up piece of paper that there would be for a tree. (I actually tend toward everything resonating in some way with archetypal Platonic things, personally, but I'm talking about essentialism in general, not just my own thoughts about it.) Or to take some of your concerns about gender and sex, one could postulate that human beings have an essential, intrinsic nature, but that "male" and "female" are not intrinsic aspects of that. (Again, this is not my own position, but it is a possible one.)
As I asked above, how does one determine the essence of something, it's intrinsic nature -- for real? What is the process?
I hear many statements about essence, and justifications based on wrong assumptions. What is the true basis?
How does one determine the essence of something produced from something else, then?
Our different cultures as well as our conformity to them determines what is Right and Wrong in this case.
I would say that it determines your views of Right and Wrong, but aren't you both trying to find out and adhere to what is really Right vs really Wrong? Like people trying to see a mountain clearly with telescopes--the mountain is real, but our ideas of it can be imperfect, and we're trying to see that mountain with the lenses we have as best we can?
[/quote]
No, actually. We are both convinced in our own minds on the matter and think the other is wrong.
I’m not sure that’s the case, actually. If Chastmastr is an essentialist, then he believes that truth is” out there” and potentially discoverable; which leaves him at least the possibility of being reasonably sure of his position but not wholly convinced he has it completely right, and therefore still being open to learning more.
If there is a God in the way Scripture describes him, doesn't that mean whatever exists is always perceived? By God, at least. And remembered, which gives creation some form of immortality regardless of what happens to it in the end. Though to be sure, I hope for more than that.
Bishop Berkeley? Is that you?
I assume I’ve crossed paths with another Great Mind, and am about to drown in two inches of philosophy. Pity that it’s mostly a closed book to me. I assume he said what i said, then?
@martin54:It doesn't arise. There is absolutely no rational need to go there
Yes, well if you discount ‘magic’ then Me too. The tooth fairy, sky fairy, Flying Spaghetti Monster is not what Christian theology posits as a supreme being for the reason that those things would have to exist within our conceptual frame. The God of the Bible is external to creation though. He imposes himself on human consciousness from outside it. That is what makes him different. He is not a human conception or creation.
I get you have shut down any supernaturalism in your thinking but it is not the case for others and as we are all the same species it might be wise to make the concession that that choice of faith is not actually about rationality or lack of, it is about perception which not everyone shares.
@martin54:It doesn't arise. There is absolutely no rational need to go there
Yes, well if you discount ‘magic’ then Me too. The tooth fairy, sky fairy, Flying Spaghetti Monster is not what Christian theology posits as a supreme being for the reason that those things would have to exist within our conceptual frame. The God of the Bible is external to creation though. He imposes himself on human consciousness from outside it. That is what makes him different. He is not a human conception or creation.
I get you have shut down any supernaturalism in your thinking but it is not the case for others and as we are all the same species it might be wise to make the concession that that choice of faith is not actually about rationality or lack of, it is about perception which not everyone shares.
I don't see why any magical entity couldn't be supremely transcendent. Jesus was God the bloke. The Bible is full of epiphanies. The Ruler of the Universe's cat was the Lord in H2G2 (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy). And I can't see how God could be separated from creation. He says He isn't. Or faith can be chosen. God the Posit humbly instantiates the prevenient laws of physics as if He didn't. There are no gaps at all in or around the Uncertainty Principle, let alone any that only He could occupy. Supernaturalism has shut itself down. It cannot answer, will not speak. It has become unthinkable in me; I can posit it fine.
I’m not sure that’s the case, actually. If Chastmastr is an essentialist, then he believes that truth is” out there” and potentially discoverable; which leaves him at least the possibility of being reasonably sure of his position but not wholly convinced he has it completely right, and therefore still being open to learning more.
Sorry @Lamb Chopped I think formatting has made the end of my post unclear. I was describing the disagreement with my Anabaptist friend over killing. I have tried to contextualize the comments and improve the formatting.
[Kendel:]Morality is cultural and does depend on brain chemistry.
I don't mean what some cultures can perceive about, or blind spots they may have regarding, morality--nor what blind spots our brain chemistry might have due to some kind of mental impairment--I mean right and wrong itself, full stop.
We are talking about the same thing, but understand it differently.
My Anabaptist friend and I both agree that “killing is wrong.” We mean very different things by that.
Our different cultures as well as our conformity to them determines what is Right and Wrong in this case.
Our different cultures as well as our conformity to them determines what is Right and Wrong in this case.
I would say that it determines your views of Right and Wrong, but aren't you both trying to find out and adhere to what is really Right vs really Wrong? Like people trying to see a mountain clearly with telescopes--the mountain is real, but our ideas of it can be imperfect, and we're trying to see that mountain with the lenses we have as best we can?
No, actually. We are both convinced in our own minds on the matter and think the other is wrong.
@Kendel, I think this is getting into, not whether some kind of essentialism is true (which can include all kinds of things), but why one should hold to a particular take on essentialism, for which there are lots and lots of positions.
For me, at least, this has traveled far afield from this, which hinged on whether "if at least some things . . . have intrinsic meaning or nature at all" rather than absolutely nothing having intrinsic meaning or nature at all:
I see in the above a tendency towards conceiving the issue in binary terms - do you think this reflects the general extent to which our thinking is (predominantly) Western, or maybe that it emerges (more specifically) from an essentialist perspective?
In my case, it’s connected to a belief in philosophical essentialism, rather than existentialism, certainly. If it is true, and Western or other groups of beliefs reflect this, then good. But to me the primary matter is whether or not something is true, not the region of the world that believes it.
Ah.
In my understanding, essentialism is no more "true" or "false" than existentialism - they are both perspectives or systems for thinking about the world. It is possible to believe that one or other is better, according to some criteria, but not that one is truer.
I don’t understand that concept at all. To me this is completely about things being true or false. If things do – if at least some things do – have intrinsic meaning or nature at all, then at least some essentialism is true. If nothing has intrinsic meaning or nature, then existentialism is true.
The problem, it seems to me, is that nobody really sees the ridiculousness of the one's own assumptions. Which to a large extent are actually subjective in the sense that they are highly dependent on ones own perceptions.
For example. Let's say that belief in some things about God are a prerequisite for conversations amongst Christians. Not really much of a hindrance in many ways, as there needs to be some level of shared acceptance of ideas to have that conversation.
And yet it seems like Kierkegaard had very different ideas about God than the Christians of his day. Presumably other people exist and have existed who had different ideas. Even on that first and base principle basis.
So if there are a bunch of different ideas about God within Christianity, how does anyone assess which is correct. More importantly perhaps, how does one bury into the mountain of claims about God within Christianity to examine which are actually, for the sake of this discussion, built on shaky foundations. How does one assess whether that idea has no foundation at all? What difference would that theological structure look like if one could bury into it and find that there wasn't anything there and no God at all? Maybe it actually makes no difference.
I'm just using this for illustration purposes, I'm not really interested in a discussion about the existence or non-existence of God.
What, the assumption of materialism, methodological naturalism is ridiculous? Without going as far as philosophical naturalism of course. That would be ridiculous. Assuming that the assumption of materialism, methodological naturalism is ridiculous, must be ridiculous to you too. How ridiculous!
@Kendel, I think this is getting into, not whether some kind of essentialism is true (which can include all kinds of things), but why one should hold to a particular take on essentialism, for which there are lots and lots of positions.
Indeed. My very reason for regularly refering to your OP, which also stated your interest in things being True or False, while trying to get to the bottom of rabbit trails like First Principles, and Right and Wrong.
How would one demonstrate essentialism to be true? How would one demonstrate intrinsic meaning or nature?
But assigned "essentialism" to the Order of First Principles.
I find the assigment of that status dubious, and if it were a First Principle, one should be able to explain such a foundational truth as such (as in Physics), rather than simply assigning it the status of Sacred -- Do not handle. Do not taste. Do not touch.
Until essentialism, whether a First Principle or not, is demonstrable, then it is a subjective matter, which may include culture norms and cultural assumptions. Not a matter of ultimate truth.
Is there something about strength (mental? Spiritual?) offered by belief in being part of an ultimate narrative versus being in a universe where your life only has the meaning you give yourself?
I don’t think you can prove that things have meaning. You could always say that it’s an illusion, or how our brains are wired, or something pumped into us by society. I’m inclined to paraphrase Chesterton—like the sun, it is by it that I see everything else.
I don’t think you can prove that things have meaning. You could always say that it’s an illusion, or how our brains are wired, or something pumped into us by society. I’m incliNicened to paraphrase Chesterton—like the sun, it is by it that I see everything else.
Nice!
And Halleluja for Martin's 'attitude of gratitude'. A wonderful, and essential, Fruit of the Spirit!
I think one reaches first principles by a mixture of empirical observation and induction on the one hand and transcendental argument on the other hand. (A transcendental argument is an argument of the form, given that we can do this, form these concepts, don't seem to be able to manage without them, what has to be the case?)
First principles that generate too many unsolved problems get abandoned for other principles that explain why the initial set couldn't solve its problems.
I think one reaches first principles by a mixture of empirical observation and induction on the one hand and transcendental argument on the other hand. (A transcendental argument is an argument of the form, given that we can do this, form these concepts, don't seem to be able to manage without them, what has to be the case?)
First principles that generate too many unsolved problems get abandoned for other principles that explain why the initial set couldn't solve its problems.
I think one reaches first principles by a mixture of empirical observation and induction on the one hand and transcendental argument on the other hand. (A transcendental argument is an argument of the form, given that we can do this, form these concepts, don't seem to be able to manage without them, what has to be the case?)
First principles that generate too many unsolved problems get abandoned for other principles that explain why the initial set couldn't solve its problems.
There seems to be a paradox that Lewis made transcendental arguments to prove the existence of God and refute naturalism by argument from reason, but 'Transcendental arguments may have additional standards of justification that are more demanding than those of traditional deductive arguments', wiki.
In my foolish rushing in 'one of the main uses of transcendental arguments is to appeal to something that cannot be consistently denied to counter skeptics' arguments that we cannot know something about the nature of the world.' I am not skeptical of Kant's making of making space and time "conditions of the possibility of experience", nor am I skeptical about the laws of physics, mathematics and logic.
But I'm completely skeptical of Lewis, Platinga and the appalling William Lane Craig.
Apart from a decent education, what and where do I lack? What am I missing?
I personally consider (C.S.) Lewis to be extremely helpful in most if not all spiritual matters. Anyone else's mileage may vary. (No, I'm not planning on arguing about this, @Martin54 or anyone else.)
I personally consider (C.S.) Lewis to be extremely helpful in most if not all spiritual matters. Anyone else's mileage may vary. (No, I'm not planning on arguing about this, @Martin54 or anyone else.)
I would, in the reasoned, Purgatorial sense. But all one can say is, that's nice. Can one even ask how, where, when, why?
First principles are those that we can’t reason down any further. I don’t think gender makes that cut, but I’m also helplessly Butlerian in my thinking about gender, which is that gender is all social all the way down. I don’t know of any systematic theologian who has argued that gender is an essential component of the soul, and even if they did that wouldn’t be a first principle because gender is a debated concept. You could maybe argue that biological sex is an essential component of who we are, but even that would face heavy criticism.
Butler has dealt with this a bit because they’re theory doesn’t account (well) for trans people, and they’ve subsequently made some changes.
The problem, it seems to me, is that nobody really sees the ridiculousness of the one's own assumptions. Which to a large extent are actually subjective in the sense that they are highly dependent on ones own perceptions.
For example. Let's say that belief in some things about God are a prerequisite for conversations amongst Christians. Not really much of a hindrance in many ways, as there needs to be some level of shared acceptance of ideas to have that conversation.
And yet it seems like Kierkegaard had very different ideas about God than the Christians of his day. Presumably other people exist and have existed who had different ideas. Even on that first and base principle basis.
So if there are a bunch of different ideas about God within Christianity, how does anyone assess which is correct. More importantly perhaps, how does one bury into the mountain of claims about God within Christianity to examine which are actually, for the sake of this discussion, built on shaky foundations. How does one assess whether that idea has no foundation at all? What difference would that theological structure look like if one could bury into it and find that there wasn't anything there and no God at all? Maybe it actually makes no difference.
I'm just using this for illustration purposes, I'm not really interested in a discussion about the existence or non-existence of God.
This is good but a BA in philosophy will whip this habit of thought out of you pretty quickly.
There are some things we know and we can all agree on knowing them. Some of those things we know seem to be knowable independent of human presence, mathematical truths for instance, and from these observations thinkers attempt to erect frames for all of our beliefs.
I personally consider (C.S.) Lewis to be extremely helpful in most if not all spiritual matters. Anyone else's mileage may vary. (No, I'm not planning on arguing about this, @Martin54 or anyone else.)
I would, in the reasoned, Purgatorial sense. But all one can say is, that's nice. Can one even ask how, where, when, why?
As long as it's nice and not the N.I.C.E. from That Hideous Strength, sure. I'll answer, though this is getting far afield from the main topic.
How: By reading his books.
Where: Anywhere one likes, though underwater might present difficulties.
When: Anywhen one likes.
Why: Because, as I said, "I personally consider (C.S.) Lewis to be extremely helpful in most if not all spiritual matters."
But as the Gentle Reader may note, I also said, "I'm not planning on arguing about this."
First principles are those that we can’t reason down any further. I don’t think gender makes that cut, but I’m also helplessly Butlerian in my thinking about gender, which is that gender is all social all the way down. I don’t know of any systematic theologian who has argued that gender is an essential component of the soul, and even if they did that wouldn’t be a first principle because gender is a debated concept. You could maybe argue that biological sex is an essential component of who we are, but even that would face heavy criticism.
Butler has dealt with this a bit because they’re theory doesn’t account (well) for trans people, and they’ve subsequently made some changes.
Re "even if they did that wouldn’t be a first principle because gender is a debated concept," I don't think that would make it not a first principle--I'm not aware of any first principle that people don't debate--for instance on this thread. (Or, for that matter, in my 1990s grad school class when they were talking about deconstructionism and the like. When people literally suggest that the binary opposition between sanity and insanity should be deconstructed to the point of undecidability, er, well, you know?) People would just disagree on what the first principles include, as indeed they already do on other matters. (I don't think the gender of the soul is in fact one of those first principles, myself. I'm just saying that disagreement about it, by itself, wouldn't make it not a first principle.)
If there is a God in the way Scripture describes him, doesn't that mean whatever exists is always perceived? By God, at least. And remembered, which gives creation some form of immortality regardless of what happens to it in the end. Though to be sure, I hope for more than that.
Bishop Berkeley? Is that you?
I assume I’ve crossed paths with another Great Mind, and am about to drown in two inches of philosophy. Pity that it’s mostly a closed book to me. I assume he said what i said, then?
Your idea is part of it --- for B.B. things exist inasmuch as they are perceived. This is related to early empiricism, and the discovery that there's a difference between what's "out there" in the world, and our perceptions of it (easily proved by shoving the side of your eyeball). Of course there's not always a human around, but for the good Bishop things can still continue to exist because God is perceiving them. His motto (so to speak) was "esse est percipi" - to exist is to be perceived. There is a famous pair of limericks about his philosophy:
There was a young man who said "God
must find it exceedingly odd
to think that a tree
can continue to be
when there's no one about in the quad."
Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd.
I am always about in the quad.
And that's how the tree
can continue to be,
since observed by, yours faithfully, God.
The problem, it seems to me, is that nobody really sees the ridiculousness of the one's own assumptions. Which to a large extent are actually subjective in the sense that they are highly dependent on ones own perceptions.
For example. Let's say that belief in some things about God are a prerequisite for conversations amongst Christians. Not really much of a hindrance in many ways, as there needs to be some level of shared acceptance of ideas to have that conversation.
And yet it seems like Kierkegaard had very different ideas about God than the Christians of his day. Presumably other people exist and have existed who had different ideas. Even on that first and base principle basis.
So if there are a bunch of different ideas about God within Christianity, how does anyone assess which is correct. More importantly perhaps, how does one bury into the mountain of claims about God within Christianity to examine which are actually, for the sake of this discussion, built on shaky foundations. How does one assess whether that idea has no foundation at all? What difference would that theological structure look like if one could bury into it and find that there wasn't anything there and no God at all? Maybe it actually makes no difference.
I'm just using this for illustration purposes, I'm not really interested in a discussion about the existence or non-existence of God.
This is good but a BA in philosophy will whip this habit of thought out of you pretty quickly.
I have a BA in philosophy. I think they are good questions.
There are some things we know and we can all agree on knowing them. Some of those things we know seem to be knowable independent of human presence, mathematical truths for instance, and from these observations thinkers attempt to erect frames for all of our beliefs.
I find it hard to believe all our beliefs can be hung on mathematical axioms. Or indeed that there are other kinds of axioms to serve as coatpegs in that manner. Even things that seem very solid to a western mind concerning existence, reality, etc., mind might be questioned or rejected by someone with an upbringing in eastern religions or philosophies.
Mathematics is interesting but I don't think it says much about other kinds of thinking.
I'm not a mathematician, but quite a lot of it feels like one has to suspend knowledge of the real world in order to accept a perfect one for it to work. It is certainly fascinating that it is possible to prove mathematical theorem and that the answers are so consistent. Quite a contrast to everything else, in my opinion.
I think for me the issue is I've never seen a reason to argue that reality exists regardless of human perception of it because it just seems to be a reasonable assumption barring some powerful reason to question it.
I just don't understand what happens to the billions of years of the universe's existence prior to humanity. And how did humans come to exist if nothing exists without them perceiving it? And how does object permanence work? How can anything be discovered if it doesn't exist without perception? It just feels like the world makes a lot more sense if we proceed on the basis that it really exists regardless of observation or perception.
If I'm honest - possibly autistically honest - it seems an unnecessary, irrational and pointless proposition.
I suppose on some level there is a question about existence and how we understand the term.
Of course, you are obviously correct that the universe has existed for far longer than humans have perceived it.
On the other hand, what we know and understand about the universe is largely predicated on the human senses that we use. So the question then becomes about how much of what we know (or even "know") about the universe is real and how much is perception.
Which is a conversation about the Philosophy of Science, observation, bias etc.
It's all fascinating stuff. I don't know anything about astronomy, but I'm willing to accept that there is immense precision there due the amount of physics and mathematics involved.
But from what I do know a out more earthly science, there seems to be an awful lot of handwaving. To the extent that it seems amazing whenever there's a breakthrough which stands up to years of scrutiny.
I'm right there on the spectrum with you @KarlLB. It just shows the second rate thinking, 'philosophy', still used to justify second rate theology. I fully acknowledge that there is first rate theology, but it has no external philosophical support. One can only use philosophy within belief. The nicely multiply absurd, fallacious limerick is still (not by @mousethief) smugly wheeled out in its centenary two more after Bishop Berkeley. Written less than a couple of generations after the riff on Berkeley. By a priest. In Berkeley's early C18th day it would have been very clever. And even then. Boswell and Hume, Burtt and Byron, Russell say it all. Einstein obviously didn't think so over 200 years later either. That we still have to deconstruct this specious nonsense is sadly amusing. All philosophy lacks is its formal disproof (and someone will show I'm out of date I'm sure). First class theology wouldn't dream of relying on such sub-sophomoric nonsense. If God were the ground of being, then yes, esse est percipi. The world transcendentally essentially exists, regardless of our perception.
I suppose on some level there is a question about existence and how we understand the term.
Of course, you are obviously correct that the universe has existed for far longer than humans have perceived it.
On the other hand, what we know and understand about the universe is largely predicated on the human senses that we use. So the question then becomes about how much of what we know (or even "know") about the universe is real and how much is perception.
Which is a conversation about the Philosophy of Science, observation, bias etc.
It's all fascinating stuff. I don't know anything about astronomy, but I'm willing to accept that there is immense precision there due the amount of physics and mathematics involved.
But from what I do know a out more earthly science, there seems to be an awful lot of handwaving. To the extent that it seems amazing whenever there's a breakthrough which stands up to years of scrutiny.
Thing about popular science is it's strongly filtered through the media. There are a lot of distortions - journalists not understanding the science, selective quoting - not always intentionally distorting.
Scientists themselves of course tend to be highly specialised. They get terribly excited about minutiae, and their enthusiasm can give the impression that the results of a study are more significant than they are.
But overall, as evidenced by my typing this on a device weighing a few grammes, it works.
I suppose on some level there is a question about existence and how we understand the term.
Of course, you are obviously correct that the universe has existed for far longer than humans have perceived it.
On the other hand, what we know and understand about the universe is largely predicated on the human senses that we use. So the question then becomes about how much of what we know (or even "know") about the universe is real and how much is perception.
Which is a conversation about the Philosophy of Science, observation, bias etc.
It's all fascinating stuff. I don't know anything about astronomy, but I'm willing to accept that there is immense precision there due the amount of physics and mathematics involved.
But from what I do know a out more earthly science, there seems to be an awful lot of handwaving. To the extent that it seems amazing whenever there's a breakthrough which stands up to years of scrutiny.
Where's the handwaving seem? In physics? Chemistry? Geology? Biology? Information science? Climate science? Can you point to any example at all?
My impression of science, from decades thinking and studying it, is this.
For scientific discoveries (at least in the biological sciences I'm most familiar with) to have stickability, the parameters have to be quite wide. So they have to be pretty obvious once we are looking in the right place. And they have to be robust enough to even out all the extremes.
By that I mean that there's a large amount of complexity including things that we haven't thought of when designing scientific experiments. Sometimes we have the ability to limit the factors that could skew or muddy results (working in a very clean lab to very tight practices with many replications) but a lot of the time we don't.
Engineering/tech has those massive steps forward as you've mentioned because of all the ways that the unexpected factors can be removed and then we can have the marvel of millions of phones being produced with their amazing abilities.
I'm sorry, I've lost the train of thought just thinking of how amazing it is that we've tamed nature to produce electronic components.
I guess what I was mostly thinking is that there are sciences where we can be very content and sure we have limited the known and unknown unknowns. In particular many areas of engineering, physics and chemistry. There are many other areas of science where things are very much more uncertain.
I guess what I was mostly thinking is that there are sciences where we can be very content and sure we have limited the known and unknown unknowns. In particular many areas of engineering, physics and chemistry. There are many other areas of science where things are very much more uncertain.
Which isn't handwaving. Where's that? In whose seeming? What does a single, published, scholarly example look like? Or even in a quote by a published life or climate scientist writing for the public?
There are many other areas of science where things are very much more uncertain.
Is this a snapshot of the matter as it stands now, or the ultimate state of the matter? Has the scientific process been halted permanently by insurmountable odds?
Comments
I do not feel free to respond to this, as it involves form perichoretic with substance. Unless you openly invite me to do so. And we walk on naked together in this dialogue.
Peace my friend.
I’m sorry, I’m lost here. What are you trying to say? If you don’t feel free to respond to this, okay, but the rest is close to incomprehensible to me. I’m hypothesizing that you don’t feel able to respond without risking getting in trouble. (If that’s the case, just say so. I don’t want you to get in trouble.)
I'll get in to trouble if I trouble you further : )
Bishop Berkeley? Is that you?
The perception, consciousness and existence of trees seems rather more life-affirming, life-aware and life-sustaining than the perception, consciousness and existence of human beings.
I like the use of "obvious" for things that no-one can perceive.
Even if there is an independent reality, the frame for our questions can only come from within our awareness. But to the extent that's it's a thought experiment, there might be something about our imagination's frame of reference.
Aye. (I'm) bowled over.
With only dim awareness of the smog of the anthropocene slowly smothering us all.
What?! You didn't see their inner Munch screams!? There again, in my unwritten masterwork, 'Sap', it's no big deal, mainly, as time operates hundreds of times faster for them. A year a day. They see us coming.
Yep, I shouldn’t post from memory mea culpa.
The loss of location may be explained by others but maybe the point where what we define as physical blurs into something unknown. Is it a mathematical fact or the discovery of a point where empirical knowledge breaks down? If so then is physicality a simulation and if so that implies an constructor. No egg without a chicken. The IAM factor.
It doesn't arise. There is absolutely no rational need to go there. It's a mathematical fact and that is the discovery of a point where empirical knowledge breaks down, is deconstructed and has to be reconstructed. Uncertainty is an intrinsic part of empirical knowledge. There is no magic in the uncertainty. Except between our ears as our mesoscopic nature abhors uncertainty. So we fill it with an even more monstrous EGO.
And I too have fallen foul of memory.
I assume I’ve crossed paths with another Great Mind, and am about to drown in two inches of philosophy. Pity that it’s mostly a closed book to me. I assume he said what i said, then?
I understand. Peace.
First Principles and Essentialism:
Sorry, @ChastMastr I'm not a philosopher and am not used to using formal terms like "first principles."
This made sense to me: because established laws of physics are conclusions drawn from much observation and testing.
So, there seems to be some sort of way to establish what principles are First Principles. I mean beyond saying: Those are first principles.
As I understand it, essentialism as a matter of first principles is regularly exploited. I’m wary. The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, for example, sees one’s sex as essential to one’s being, thus making sex a first principle, no? They also make a great number of other undeniable statements about essentially sexed people and their relationships to each other, which subordinate me in my femaleness to all men.
The question bears a great deal of weight for me. How does one determine what a First Principle is, or what is essential to a thing – I mean without just saying it is that way?
Logic and Reason:
I’m not sure what you meant by: I understand logic and reason as tools, or mental processes, not first principles. They provide a way we look at ideas or observations and work through to conclusions about them. There are, of course, other tools we can use to understand what we observe but they require a different posture or disposition toward what is perceived.
Either/Or:
You mentioned in your OP: In order to know whether essentialism is true or whether existentialism is true, there must be some way to establish this. Don’t you think? What would be the first principles? And again, how would we recognize them as such?
If only essentialism OR existentialism can be true, but not both, I’m not sure where “some” fits in.
Right and Wrong:
We are talking about the same thing, but understand it differently.
My Anabaptist friend and I both agree that “killing is wrong.” We mean very different things by that.
Our different cultures as well as our conformity to them determines what is Right and Wrong in this case.
"Esse is percipi"
To be is to be perceived.
If you look up higher in the Wikipedia article, you will see
And there's a lot more under the Philosophy heading.
I would argue that the abuse does not abolish the use.
That gets thorny, especially perhaps these days. Going back to Wikipedia:
You say here
I would say the validity of logic, and of Reason as a whole, are true, and are first principles on which our ability to draw any conclusions about anything whatsoever depend. I'd also add "we can, at least to some degree, perceive reality, however imperfectly, rather than being brains in jars or the like."
When I said, "If things do – if at least some things do – have intrinsic meaning or nature at all, then at least some essentialism is true," that allows for some things not to have intrinsic meaning or nature, or at least not the same way. One could for example say that a tree has its own special, transcendent tree-nature, but that a crumpled up piece of paper is more "stuff" that came from a tree, and that there isn't some Platonic ideal of a crumpled up piece of paper that there would be for a tree. (I actually tend toward everything resonating in some way with archetypal Platonic things, personally, but I'm talking about essentialism in general, not just my own thoughts about it.) Or to take some of your concerns about gender and sex, one could postulate that human beings have an essential, intrinsic nature, but that "male" and "female" are not intrinsic aspects of that. (Again, this is not my own position, but it is a possible one.)
I would say that it determines your views of Right and Wrong, but aren't you both trying to find out and adhere to what is really Right vs really Wrong? Like people trying to see a mountain clearly with telescopes--the mountain is real, but our ideas of it can be imperfect, and we're trying to see that mountain with the lenses we have as best we can?
Of course in standard conversation we have to accept a certain amount of other prepositions as fact otherwise there's nothing to talk about.
Or agree to work with those propositions as fact at the time for the purpose of discussion. However questioning the foundational nature of propositions, or even rejecting them outright, strikes me as entirely valid as well.
As it is what I am doing right now.
Indeed, there is a lot more. Some of which I found contradictory, depending on the discipline with multiple variations among philosophers.
The reliance on axioms and assumptions in the definition is dissatisfying to me, unless one is willing to hold those as place-holders for foundational knowledge with the understanding that what is built upon those foundational place-holders is subject to change if the foundational place-holders are shown to be faulty.
There are long histories so-called first principles based on wrong assumptions.
What are the first principles you are relying on?
And on what basis should I agree with you that they are?
But that is not a defense of essentialism as a first principle, either.
Neither does it alleviate my concerns. Too many if-thens.
How thorny, really, is it though? The assumption that women are essentially different from men in some way is based on subjective cultural assumptions. They are/have been given the status of universal truths, undeniably obvious first principles, based on the the "common knowledge" of cultural assumptions.
How does one really recognize the fundamental essence of something?
Or decide what comprises that essence (or those essences)?
The validity of logic and reason as adequate processes for analysis is dependent on their ability to come to coherent, consistent conclusions and are subject to the problem of GIGO.
Many things that people hold to be true cannot be concluded simply from logical or rational processes.
And, finally for this section and moment, there is not universal cultural agreement about the validity of logic and reason as the best or most reliable tools for telling us anything.
As I asked above, how does one determine the essence of something, it's intrinsic nature -- for real? What is the process?
I hear many statements about essence, and justifications based on wrong assumptions. What is the true basis?
How does one determine the essence of something produced from something else, then?
[/quote]
No, actually. We are both convinced in our own minds on the matter and think the other is wrong.
Thank you!
Yes, well if you discount ‘magic’ then Me too. The tooth fairy, sky fairy, Flying Spaghetti Monster is not what Christian theology posits as a supreme being for the reason that those things would have to exist within our conceptual frame. The God of the Bible is external to creation though. He imposes himself on human consciousness from outside it. That is what makes him different. He is not a human conception or creation.
I get you have shut down any supernaturalism in your thinking but it is not the case for others and as we are all the same species it might be wise to make the concession that that choice of faith is not actually about rationality or lack of, it is about perception which not everyone shares.
I don't see why any magical entity couldn't be supremely transcendent. Jesus was God the bloke. The Bible is full of epiphanies. The Ruler of the Universe's cat was the Lord in H2G2 (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy). And I can't see how God could be separated from creation. He says He isn't. Or faith can be chosen. God the Posit humbly instantiates the prevenient laws of physics as if He didn't. There are no gaps at all in or around the Uncertainty Principle, let alone any that only He could occupy. Supernaturalism has shut itself down. It cannot answer, will not speak. It has become unthinkable in me; I can posit it fine.
Sorry @Lamb Chopped I think formatting has made the end of my post unclear. I was describing the disagreement with my Anabaptist friend over killing. I have tried to contextualize the comments and improve the formatting.
For me, at least, this has traveled far afield from this, which hinged on whether "if at least some things . . . have intrinsic meaning or nature at all" rather than absolutely nothing having intrinsic meaning or nature at all:
For example. Let's say that belief in some things about God are a prerequisite for conversations amongst Christians. Not really much of a hindrance in many ways, as there needs to be some level of shared acceptance of ideas to have that conversation.
And yet it seems like Kierkegaard had very different ideas about God than the Christians of his day. Presumably other people exist and have existed who had different ideas. Even on that first and base principle basis.
So if there are a bunch of different ideas about God within Christianity, how does anyone assess which is correct. More importantly perhaps, how does one bury into the mountain of claims about God within Christianity to examine which are actually, for the sake of this discussion, built on shaky foundations. How does one assess whether that idea has no foundation at all? What difference would that theological structure look like if one could bury into it and find that there wasn't anything there and no God at all? Maybe it actually makes no difference.
I'm just using this for illustration purposes, I'm not really interested in a discussion about the existence or non-existence of God.
Indeed. My very reason for regularly refering to your OP, which also stated your interest in things being True or False, while trying to get to the bottom of rabbit trails like First Principles, and Right and Wrong.
However, you did not answer my initial questions But assigned "essentialism" to the Order of First Principles.
I find the assigment of that status dubious, and if it were a First Principle, one should be able to explain such a foundational truth as such (as in Physics), rather than simply assigning it the status of Sacred -- Do not handle. Do not taste. Do not touch.
Until essentialism, whether a First Principle or not, is demonstrable, then it is a subjective matter, which may include culture norms and cultural assumptions. Not a matter of ultimate truth.
But that conclusion seems repugnant to you.
Nice!
And Halleluja for Martin's 'attitude of gratitude'. A wonderful, and essential, Fruit of the Spirit!
First principles that generate too many unsolved problems get abandoned for other principles that explain why the initial set couldn't solve its problems.
Beautiful. Thank you, @Dafyd.
There seems to be a paradox that Lewis made transcendental arguments to prove the existence of God and refute naturalism by argument from reason, but 'Transcendental arguments may have additional standards of justification that are more demanding than those of traditional deductive arguments', wiki.
In my foolish rushing in 'one of the main uses of transcendental arguments is to appeal to something that cannot be consistently denied to counter skeptics' arguments that we cannot know something about the nature of the world.' I am not skeptical of Kant's making of making space and time "conditions of the possibility of experience", nor am I skeptical about the laws of physics, mathematics and logic.
But I'm completely skeptical of Lewis, Platinga and the appalling William Lane Craig.
Apart from a decent education, what and where do I lack? What am I missing?
I would, in the reasoned, Purgatorial sense. But all one can say is, that's nice. Can one even ask how, where, when, why?
Butler has dealt with this a bit because they’re theory doesn’t account (well) for trans people, and they’ve subsequently made some changes.
This is good but a BA in philosophy will whip this habit of thought out of you pretty quickly.
There are some things we know and we can all agree on knowing them. Some of those things we know seem to be knowable independent of human presence, mathematical truths for instance, and from these observations thinkers attempt to erect frames for all of our beliefs.
As long as it's nice and not the N.I.C.E. from That Hideous Strength, sure. I'll answer, though this is getting far afield from the main topic.
But as the Gentle Reader may note, I also said, "I'm not planning on arguing about this."
Re "even if they did that wouldn’t be a first principle because gender is a debated concept," I don't think that would make it not a first principle--I'm not aware of any first principle that people don't debate--for instance on this thread. (Or, for that matter, in my 1990s grad school class when they were talking about deconstructionism and the like. When people literally suggest that the binary opposition between sanity and insanity should be deconstructed to the point of undecidability, er, well, you know?) People would just disagree on what the first principles include, as indeed they already do on other matters. (I don't think the gender of the soul is in fact one of those first principles, myself. I'm just saying that disagreement about it, by itself, wouldn't make it not a first principle.)
Your idea is part of it --- for B.B. things exist inasmuch as they are perceived. This is related to early empiricism, and the discovery that there's a difference between what's "out there" in the world, and our perceptions of it (easily proved by shoving the side of your eyeball). Of course there's not always a human around, but for the good Bishop things can still continue to exist because God is perceiving them. His motto (so to speak) was "esse est percipi" - to exist is to be perceived. There is a famous pair of limericks about his philosophy:
There was a young man who said "God
must find it exceedingly odd
to think that a tree
can continue to be
when there's no one about in the quad."
Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd.
I am always about in the quad.
And that's how the tree
can continue to be,
since observed by, yours faithfully, God.
I assume you mean "burrow" not "bury."
I have a BA in philosophy. I think they are good questions.
I find it hard to believe all our beliefs can be hung on mathematical axioms. Or indeed that there are other kinds of axioms to serve as coatpegs in that manner. Even things that seem very solid to a western mind concerning existence, reality, etc., mind might be questioned or rejected by someone with an upbringing in eastern religions or philosophies.
Mathematics is interesting but I don't think it says much about other kinds of thinking.
I'm not a mathematician, but quite a lot of it feels like one has to suspend knowledge of the real world in order to accept a perfect one for it to work. It is certainly fascinating that it is possible to prove mathematical theorem and that the answers are so consistent. Quite a contrast to everything else, in my opinion.
I just don't understand what happens to the billions of years of the universe's existence prior to humanity. And how did humans come to exist if nothing exists without them perceiving it? And how does object permanence work? How can anything be discovered if it doesn't exist without perception? It just feels like the world makes a lot more sense if we proceed on the basis that it really exists regardless of observation or perception.
If I'm honest - possibly autistically honest - it seems an unnecessary, irrational and pointless proposition.
Of course, you are obviously correct that the universe has existed for far longer than humans have perceived it.
On the other hand, what we know and understand about the universe is largely predicated on the human senses that we use. So the question then becomes about how much of what we know (or even "know") about the universe is real and how much is perception.
Which is a conversation about the Philosophy of Science, observation, bias etc.
It's all fascinating stuff. I don't know anything about astronomy, but I'm willing to accept that there is immense precision there due the amount of physics and mathematics involved.
But from what I do know a out more earthly science, there seems to be an awful lot of handwaving. To the extent that it seems amazing whenever there's a breakthrough which stands up to years of scrutiny.
Thing about popular science is it's strongly filtered through the media. There are a lot of distortions - journalists not understanding the science, selective quoting - not always intentionally distorting.
Scientists themselves of course tend to be highly specialised. They get terribly excited about minutiae, and their enthusiasm can give the impression that the results of a study are more significant than they are.
But overall, as evidenced by my typing this on a device weighing a few grammes, it works.
Where's the handwaving seem? In physics? Chemistry? Geology? Biology? Information science? Climate science? Can you point to any example at all?
For scientific discoveries (at least in the biological sciences I'm most familiar with) to have stickability, the parameters have to be quite wide. So they have to be pretty obvious once we are looking in the right place. And they have to be robust enough to even out all the extremes.
By that I mean that there's a large amount of complexity including things that we haven't thought of when designing scientific experiments. Sometimes we have the ability to limit the factors that could skew or muddy results (working in a very clean lab to very tight practices with many replications) but a lot of the time we don't.
Engineering/tech has those massive steps forward as you've mentioned because of all the ways that the unexpected factors can be removed and then we can have the marvel of millions of phones being produced with their amazing abilities.
I'm sorry, I've lost the train of thought just thinking of how amazing it is that we've tamed nature to produce electronic components.
Which isn't handwaving. Where's that? In whose seeming? What does a single, published, scholarly example look like? Or even in a quote by a published life or climate scientist writing for the public?
Is this a snapshot of the matter as it stands now, or the ultimate state of the matter? Has the scientific process been halted permanently by insurmountable odds?
Was this unclear? Your not answering led to what followed from me.
Where is the handwaving in biology? And/or climate science?