Is philosophy necessary or useful for materialists?

[levinas12]

It was answered in the post, from where you picked this sentence. Just read it.

Well, I see that you finally agree there’s an “objective” meaning in your post, that it has an “essence”.

 

[John_Savage]

Tyrion;

I ask you because you’re not a theist.

Now, of those problems not answerable through physical science: Is philosophy the source of the answer or are those questions unanswerable. You mentioned aesthetics as an example of such a question.

In other words, philosophy, what is it good for?

Why do you ask me? I never asserted the highlighted proposition. Indeed I see no value in philosophy, per se.

One can study the natural sciences to learn about the physical reality. One can study the abstract sciences. like mathematics. Others can study social sciences, which are still very simplistic, but of they are on the way to grow. One can go and study biology and medicine. Others can turn out to be writers, musicians, or engage in sports…

You know what is the most frequent utterance of a philosophy major after he graduates? It is: “You want fries with that?”.

But that highlighted sentence is incorrect. The actual, physical reality can only be discovered by the “physicalist”, scientific method. This method is inapplicable to the abstract sciences. There is no observation there, only axioms, theorems and proofs. When it comes to aethetics, there are no objectively “true” or “false” propositions. All of them are subjective. When one wishes to find out about the past, usually there are no physical clues, only testimonials. If the testimonials are first-hand, if there are many of them; they are actually known, and had several works before, and especially if they are reported by different people with different biases, then one is inclined to accept them. However, when there are only a few, all with the same bias, none of them have a real name, none of them had other works to evaluate, none of them was an eye-witness, and what they report is not just widely improbable, but actually contradicted by our actual knowelge, then the only reasonable approach is to discard them as factual. One simply puts that work into the “mythology” section.

Now the questions of religion do not belong to this category. Their deity is supposed to be alive today. So to point to some ancient book as “evidence” only underscores that their claims cannot be substantiated by actual, real evidence.

There is one thing I cannot answer: “how does one find out if a proposition pertaining to the supernatural (every time I write that word, I struggle not to write ‘stupidnatural’ or ‘stupornatural’) is true or not”? I have no idea, and therefore I keep ansking the believers about their epistemology, and NONE of them EVER offers an objective method that a skeptic can use. They immediately try to criticize the objective “scientific method”, thereby attempting to hide the fact that they have nothing to say. The Emperor has no clothes!!!

But, NO. Not all answerable questions can have answers arrived at by the scientific method. There are some “ill-informed” and usually very stupid people who keep on asserting that nonsense, no matter how many times they are corrected. But, of course one hallmark of stupidity is the lack of willingness to learn. (Names will not be mentioned )

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What is the ** rational** basis of “should” statements?

I can’t give a blanket answer since there are often many concepts conflated imto the word “should.” This includes (but is not limited to) “obligation”, “motivation,” amd contigency. Makes the question a bit ambiguous to me.

 

[Tyrion]

Well, I see that you finally agree there’s an “objective” meaning in your post, that it has an “essence”.

Looks like that I wasted some time again. So discouraging. SIGH There is a meaning WE AGREED upon. What is the meaning of this proposition: “agdaig ioree mneer iwrt wanj e”?

Language is an artifial code. We, who use it, assign “meaning” to it. That meaning is exactly what we wish it to be. If a German person says: “Zwei” and if we speak German, then the “meaning” of that word would be “two”. If you do not speak German, it would be a meaningless utterance - all the way that you could not even transcribe it into letters. Have you ever listened to a conversation in a language you did not speak? It was all gibberish - and without COMPREHENSION there is no MEANING.

If, from now on the two of us would agree that the word “one” actually means “two” and vice versa, it would be a PRIVATE code, meaningful to us, but it would be undecipherable to others. (Of course that private code should be MUCH more complicated, to be truly impossible to decipher, since the language had a tremendous amount of redundancy).

 

[Tyrion]

Tyrion;

I ask you because you’re not a theist.

Now, of those problems not answerable through physical science: Is philosophy the source of the answer or are those questions unanswerable. You mentioned aesthetics as an example of such a question.

In other words, philosophy, what is it good for?

It can be a pleasant pastime, or it can be boring. Depends on your attitude.

 

[John_Savage]

Thanks.

By the way, theists, Tyrion is right. Remember, this wasn’t a discussion of whether God exists. It was about whether philosophy is useful as anything other than a diversion, in a completely physical universe. It isn’t. All we can learn would be through the study of science. To study people, we would study social science.

If the world is ordered in some way, then we can use philosophy to explore that order.

 

[levinas12]

Looks like that I wasted some time again. So discouraging. SIGH

Well, maybe we’re both wasting our time.

But, for reference, google “Meinong” and see what comes up.

 

[levinas12]

Language is an artificial code. We, who use it, assign “meaning” to it.

We do not assign “meanings”.

“Meanings” are imposed on us from the “outside”.

This is what I mean when I say that “meanings” are “objective”.

But I suspect that what you mean by “objective” is “existing as an individual material thing in space and time”.

“Meanings” are not individual material things, and thus are not objective in this sense. But they have what one might call “ideal” existence - and their own type of “object constancy”.

For example, the number “two” is not a material thing. But there are great mathematicians who insist that the number “two” exists in its own right (apart from material things).

.

 

[Tyrion]

We do not assign “meanings”.

“Meanings” are imposed on us from the “outside” - e.g., I did not invent the “meaning” of apple.

You totally confuse the language with its referents. I already explained this, several times. I gave you the example that the “collection of words” like “have a nice day” may mean “Go to hell” in another language. You pretended that nothing has been said… just mumbled something about “misunderstandings”. Who “misunderstood” the “real meaning” of that proposition?? This alone should have told your that you have no idea about the “meaning” of the “meaning”.

This is what I mean when I say that “meanings” are “objective”.

And you make no sense.

But I suspect that what you mean by “objective” is “existing as an individual material thing in space and time”.

You suspect it incorrectly.

“Meanings” are not individual material things, and thus are not objective in this sense. But they have what one might call “ideal” existence - and their own type of “object constancy” – in fact, some philosophers have referred to them as “eternal” objects.

Who cares what those nincompoops say?

The number “two” is not a material thing. But great mathematicians and logicians think the number “two” has its own type of existence.

The attribute of “two” does exist independently from our thought processes. The concept of “two” does not. Do you actually understand the difference?

By the way, “meaning” is the same as “essence”.

If that were the case, why use two words? Of course “essence” is just another meaningless concept.

 

[tonyrey]

I can’t give a blanket answer since there are often many concepts conflated imto the word “should.” This includes (but is not limited to) “obligation”, “motivation,” amd contigency. Makes the question a bit ambiguous to me.

Then what is the rational basis of moral obligations?

Is it scientific?

 

[John_Savage]

It’s my experience that it’s not useful to argue philosophy or morality with people who disagree with me on first principles, like the existence of God. We can only ask questions and seek to understand.

Tyrion is making complete sense from a materialist point of view. Philosophy isn’t useful to him, although since he’s on this forum, he might enjoy talking about it or maybe thinks that it would make him happy to convince people that there isn’t a God, just like missionaries think it’s good to convert people to their religion. And, why would it be?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

**Tyrion is making complete sense from a materialist point of view. Philosophy isn’t useful to him, although since he’s on this forum, he might enjoy talking about it or maybe thinks that it would make him happy to convince people that there isn’t a God, just like missionaries think it’s good to convert people to their religion. And, why would it be? **

The difference is that the missionary wants to create something beautiful.

Tyrion only wants to destroy something he thinks is ugly … religion.

 

[John_Savage]

Sorry. My last sentence didn’t make any sense. I probably meant, “And, why wouldn’t he?”

Charlemagne:

You and I think that, but that’s because we share the world view he wants to tear down. If Catholicism is true, then what Tyrion is doing is quite evil. I’m sure he doesn’t feel that way.

John

**Tyrion is making complete sense from a materialist point of view. Philosophy isn’t useful to him, although since he’s on this forum, he might enjoy talking about it or maybe thinks that it would make him happy to convince people that there isn’t a God, just like missionaries think it’s good to convert people to their religion. And, why would it be? **

The difference is that the missionary wants to create something beautiful.

Tyrion only wants to destroy something he thinks is ugly … religion.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

**You and I think that, but that’s because we share the world view he wants to tear down. If Catholicism is true, then what Tyrion is doing is quite evil. I’m sure he doesn’t feel that way. **

Yes. He thinks tearing away at something he thinks is evil must be good.

But why should he think it’s evil? Are the Ten Commandments evil? Is the Sermon on the Mount evil? Is teaching virtue evil? Is encouraging people to be better than they are evil? Is pointing out our faults to ourselves (confession) evil? Is worshiping and thanking God evil?

I just don’t get how the self-righteous superiority of atheism actually works. What is it based on?

 

[John_Savage]

Tyrion can answer for himself of course, but in my experience, it’s because people have a philosophy that’s incompatible with Christianity. The Church needs to go away for their philosophy to prevail. For example, both Fascists and Communists wanted the Church out of the way. People of non-traditional sexual appetites. The list of people and groups that have the Church on their hit list is very long.

Some people might have had a bad experience with Christianity.

Some people don’t care about philosophy or religion at all. They don’t tend to hate.

John

**You and I think that, but that’s because we share the world view he wants to tear down. If Catholicism is true, then what Tyrion is doing is quite evil. I’m sure he doesn’t feel that way. **

Yes. He thinks tearing away at something he thinks is evil must be good.

But why should he think it’s evil? Are the Ten Commandments evil? Is the Sermon on the Mount evil? Is teaching virtue evil? Is encouraging people to be better than they are evil? Is pointing out our faults to ourselves (confession) evil? Is worshiping and thanking God evil?

I just don’t get how the self-righteous superiority of atheism actually works. What is it based on?

 

[Tyrion]

It’s my experience that it’s not useful to argue philosophy or morality with people who disagree with me on first principles, like the existence of God. We can only ask questions and seek to understand.

This is a very important point. The fact that SOME of you present God as a “first principle” definitely makes the conversation not just next to impossible, but actually useless. How can there be a conversation with someone whose basic stance is: “God exists! God is all good”! All the seemingly bad, horrible things we see are simply ‘measurement errors’!" You follow the example of Billy Graham, who said: “My mind is made up! Do not confuse me with facts!”. Once in a blue moon I meet someone, who is not this dogmatic. I keep hoping to find people like them, because there can be a mutually beneficial conversation, even if it never leads to an agreement.

It would be much more useful if you posited God as a hypothesis, and then we could examine the evidence pro and con - and then let the chips fall where they may. The trouble is that I have never seen a theist who would admit that there is evidence against God’ existence. Whenever someone bring up a point, the apologists try to explain it away.

Nevertheless, you guys are funny with this “sicko”-analyzing me… Yet another excellent example of empty speculation - like so much of “philosophy”.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Then what is the rational basis of moral obligations?

Now that I think about it, I recall us having versions of this conversation before. Rather than rehash everything here I’ve posted links to the previous discussions. Something to note from previous responses is the entanglement between rational and irrational thought in humans. The feelings/emotion of the self and others are often a moral consideration. Depending on which definition of “irrational” that you are using feelings in many cases would be classified as “irrational.”

Is it scientific?

Science may inform one’s moral considerations, but is not always a consideration.

 

[John_Savage]

I meant to make an equivalence. We have different assumptions. We can’t argue morality, for example, if you think we’re smart animals and we think there’s a natural law.

This is a very important point. The fact that SOME of you present God as a “first principle” definitely makes the conversation not just next to impossible, but actually useless. How can there be a conversation with someone whose basic stance is: “God exists! God is all good”! All the seemingly bad, horrible things we see are simply ‘measurement errors’!" You follow the example of Billy Graham, who said: “My mind is made up! Do not confuse me with facts!”. Once in a blue moon I meet someone, who is not this dogmatic. I keep hoping to find people like them, because there can be a mutually beneficial conversation, even if it never leads to an agreement.

It would be much more useful if you posited God as a hypothesis, and then we could examine the evidence pro and con - and then let the chips fall where they may. The trouble is that I have never seen a theist who would admit that there is evidence against God’ existence. Whenever someone bring up a point, the apologists try to explain it away.

Nevertheless, you guys are funny with this “sicko”-analyzing me… Yet another excellent example of empty speculation - like so much of “philosophy”.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The trouble is that I have never seen a theist who would admit that there is evidence against God’ existence.

Oh really? Then you haven’t met me.

The problem of evil is a serious argument against God’s existence, but in no way insurmountable. Evolution and an origin of life by natural causes could also very well be interpreted as an argument against the existence of God (even though I don’t do that). I have written an overview of the research on the origin of life by natural causes for Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website, so I know a thing or two about the topic (I am biochemist by profession):

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

So what prevents me from becoming an atheist after all? One essential thing is the argument from the extreme fine-tuning of the laws of nature, a fine-tuning that allows for evolution to occur in the first place (the argument also incidentally answers the atheistic counter-argument from the vastness of the universe). Another thing is that a naturalistic origin of the universe is inconsistent with what we know from science about actual matter and fields (that connects also to some extent with classical cosmological arguments). For all this, see my article:

Cosmological arguments for the existence of God
(A philosophical perspective on findings of science)

Another essential argument for me is the Argument from Reason, which denies that there are, or even in principle can be, good materialist explanations for human rationality.

See for example this link by C.S.Lewis, even though it is not an easy read (it took me a while to fully understand it):

The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism

See also my article:

“Naturalism is true”: A self-contradictory statement

I also would refer to the book Aping Mankind by Raymond Tallis. He is an atheist and a neuroscientist, and he thoroughly debunks the idea that we have good materialistic explanations for the human mind and consciousness. Here is the amazon link with also my review:

amazon.com/Aping-Mankind-Neuromania-Darwinitis-Misrepresentation/dp/1844652734

---

Do I think that I might be wrong about my faith in God? Sure, the possibility exists. I am mature enough to concede that. However, I find it highly unlikely. I don’t have absolute certainty (I even have no personal ‘experience’ of God that could give me that), but I am as certain about it as you can reasonably be about most things in life.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The problem of evil is a serious argument against God’s existence, but in no way insurmountable.

Here is an excellent defense:

answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/john-loftus/the-will-to-disbelieve-a-critical-review-of-the-loftus-wood-debate.html

(Even though some of his remarks about the holocaust are less than apt, but that is a minor cringe-inducing detail that I can live with in the broader picture.)