Problems with truth

[GloriousOrder]

Friends

There are two camps in philosophy right now. The first is called the dogmatic/immanent, or classical camp; it says that we know the truth of a thing by seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, or tasting it, and that the intellect grasps it just by sensing it. The truth is immanent: it is here, now, before our faces, completely.

The second camp is called the transient/platonist, or liberal camp; it says that truth is hidden behind accidents/appearances, and we really have no way of seeing spiritual truth, because our senses only collect material truths. It is generally scientific to the extreme, ignoring spiritual ideas or marginalising them.

The classical cannot convince the liberal that absolute truth is taken in by the senses, because the liberal says that truth isn’t totally knowable, only appearances. The liberal cannot convince the classical, because the liberal says that there is no real spiritual thing, and if there is, it is totally beyond our grasp.

Who is right? How are we sure? It seems neither side can do anything.

 

[passus]

It seems that there is fault with even the classical camp–which you seem to favor–in that it relies on the testimony of our senses, which can be wrong. The liberal perspective seems safer insofar as the senses are a nonissue altogether.

Looking forward to an interesting discussion here!

 

[GloriousOrder]

It seems that there is fault with even the classical camp–which you seem to favor–in that it relies on the testimony of our senses, which can be wrong. The liberal perspective seems safer insofar as the senses are a nonissue altogether.

Looking forward to an interesting discussion here!

How can our senses be wrong, but our non-sensible mind right? If the liberal view is correct and the senses become a non-issue, why not make the other faculties of the soul a non-issue? What experience do we have to suggest that the senses are always wrong, or unreliable more than 50% of the time? Why can’t the senses be trusted to show us that the truth of ‘rockiness’ is in one rock, and not hidden behind impossible-to-penetrate things?

 

[HickmanJosh]

Friends

There are two camps in philosophy right now. The first is called the dogmatic/immanent, or classical camp; it says that we know the truth of a thing by seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, or tasting it, and that the intellect grasps it just by sensing it. The truth is immanent: it is here, now, before our faces, completely.

well that to an extent is correct, we can deduce some things by reason, but when we encounter God we hit a roadblock because we can barely grasp his existence let alone many things about Him (like is he personal, what atrabutes does he have beyond being all-powerful, seeing and present). Christianity relies on revelations from God to us.

The second camp is called the transient/platonist, or liberal camp; it says that truth is hidden behind accidents/appearances, and we really have no way of seeing spiritual truth, because our senses only collect material truths. It is generally scientific to the extreme, ignoring spiritual ideas or marginalising them.

This seems somewhat close to the truth but it may err to close to relativism and scianceism which are plainly unreasonable.

 

[GloriousOrder]

well that to an extent is correct, we can deduce some things by reason, but when we encounter God we hit a roadblock because we can barely grasp his existence let alone many things about Him (like is he personal, what atrabutes does he have beyond being all-powerful, seeing and present). Christianity relies on revelations from God to us.

The Liberals would say that we do not encounter God at all, because (if He exists) He is spiritual and we are entirely material. Our souls are not measurable, after all. They say that we cannot know whether the Bible is God’s revelation, since they believe the spiritual does not communicate with the material - thus, God* can’t* communicate with our senses.

If you say “too bad, he does”, they laugh at you as unscientific. My question is: how do you evangelise these people when they deny the basic premise behind human philosophy and existence?

This seems somewhat close to the truth but it may err to close to relativism and scianceism which are plainly unreasonable.

Those in the liberal camp would precisely agree, and concur with you that their position is unreasonable, and that’s good in their eyes. They believe that reason is useless, because only scientific observation and experimentation are absolutely reliable. This somewhat defeats their denial of the senses, though…

 

[HickmanJosh]

The Liberals would say that we do not encounter God at all, because (if He exists) He is spiritual and we are entirely material. Our souls are not measurable, after all. They say that we cannot know whether the Bible is God’s revelation, since they believe the spiritual does not communicate with the material - thus, God* can’t* communicate with our senses.

If you say “too bad, he does”, they laugh at you as unscientific. My question is: how do you evangelise these people when they deny the basic premise behind human philosophy and existence?

Well if God could create the universe out of nothing as the Big Bang Theory (among other things) suggests then it is certainly possible that He could reveal Himself to us talking rocks(to their eyes) through -at the very least- other matter.

Those in the liberal camp would precisely agree, and concur with you that their position is unreasonable, and that’s good in their eyes. They believe that reason is useless, because only scientific observation and experimentation are absolutely reliable. This somewhat defeats their denial of the senses, though…

so would they be satisfied with 2+2=7 billion? Because without reason that is certainly acceptable. Common sense says that relativism is self-defeating and scianceism is likewise self-defeating. Why is science sooooooo revealing and reliable that reason, common sense and the entire philosophical and theological tradition can be tossed aside? Do not the sciences use reason to deduce conclusions? Can science tell us why science works? (that is, why it is possible to draw logical conclusions about matter and its different forms and functions in our universe)

 

[passus]

How can our senses be wrong, but our non-sensible mind right? If the liberal view is correct and the senses become a non-issue, why not make the other faculties of the soul a non-issue? What experience do we have to suggest that the senses are always wrong, or unreliable more than 50% of the time? Why can’t the senses be trusted to show us that the truth of ‘rockiness’ is in one rock, and not hidden behind impossible-to-penetrate things?

For a truth to be true, it must be true more than 50% of the time. In fact, it’s got to be true 100% of the time! And so whatever leads us to believing a truth must be reliable…not 50% of the time…but 100% of the time. As for evidence that would lead us not to trust our senses: that’s easy. It only takes one mistake to raise eternal doubt in considering the reliability our sensory feedback. Have you ever mistaken a printed word? Mis-heard someone calling your name? Touched a surface briefly and found yourself unable to distinguish between whether it was extremely hot or extremely cold?

Our senses are not perfect, and so they’re unreliable.

I’m not sure what you mean exactly by “non-sensible mind,” but I never said that it was right, either.

 

[GloriousOrder]

For a truth to be true, it must be true more than 50% of the time. In fact, it’s got to be true 100% of the time! And so whatever leads us to believing a truth must be reliable…not 50% of the time…but 100% of the time. As for evidence that would lead us not to trust our senses: that’s easy. It only takes one mistake to raise eternal doubt in considering the reliability our sensory feedback. Have you ever mistaken a printed word? Mis-heard someone calling your name? Touched a surface briefly and found yourself unable to distinguish between whether it was extremely hot or extremely cold?

Our senses are not perfect, and so they’re unreliable.

I’m not sure what you mean exactly by “non-sensible mind,” but I never said that it was right, either.

These are not good examples of our senses being unreliable to discern truth. The fact is that just because we misheard our name doesn’t mean we can never hear it properly. If we just ask them to repeat it louder or come closer, we will hear our true name. The printed word may be misread, but you may focus your beautiful, wondrous eyes to read it properly, and truly. If you leave your hand long enough on that surface, you can factually say it’s hot or it’s cold. Momentary mishaps do not define the senses - they are accidents, mistakes, not the whole of the matter!

What dogmatists posit is that the senses can know absolute truth, and are to be trusted. Simply because we make mistakes doesn’t mean it’s nullified forever!

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Friends

There are two camps in philosophy right now. The first is called the dogmatic/immanent, or classical camp; it says that we know the truth of a thing by seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, or tasting it, and that the intellect grasps it just by sensing it. The truth is immanent: it is here, now, before our faces, completely.

The second camp is called the transient/platonist, or liberal camp; it says that truth is hidden behind accidents/appearances, and we really have no way of seeing spiritual truth, because our senses only collect material truths. It is generally scientific to the extreme, ignoring spiritual ideas or marginalising them.

The classical cannot convince the liberal that absolute truth is taken in by the senses, because the liberal says that truth isn’t totally knowable, only appearances. The liberal cannot convince the classical, because the liberal says that there is no real spiritual thing, and if there is, it is totally beyond our grasp.

Who is right? How are we sure? It seems neither side can do anything.

We are stating that all possible worlds are absolute correct?

The liberal is well saying the spiritual world is not observable and cannot be definable. But would damage their position if they were not to address absolutes in said world. What the liberal must address is the acquired knowledge of this completely unknowable world through the senses, and is thus extrinsically dependent.

 

[levinas12]

Friends

There are two camps in philosophy right now. The first is called the dogmatic/immanent, or classical camp; it says that we know the truth of a thing by seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, or tasting it, and that the intellect grasps it just by sensing it. The truth is immanent: it is here, now, before our faces, completely.

The second camp is called the transient/platonist, or liberal camp; it says that truth is hidden behind accidents/appearances, and we really have no way of seeing spiritual truth, because our senses only collect material truths. It is generally scientific to the extreme, ignoring spiritual ideas or marginalising them.

The classical cannot convince the liberal that absolute truth is taken in by the senses, because the liberal says that truth isn’t totally knowable, only appearances. The liberal cannot convince the classical, because the liberal says that there is no real spiritual thing, and if there is, it is totally beyond our grasp.

Who is right? How are we sure? It seems neither side can do anything.

There is another way of looking at this … which is not unrelated to your distinction between classical and liberal. That’s the notion of a priori constraints. This approach is not necessarily Kantian (i.e., it does not necessarily dig a ditch between appearance and noumenon).

Our body, for example, with its senses, is an a priori constraint of sorts. We,at least in this life, are naturally limited to perceiving material beings (this does not rule out supernatural exceptions). Aquinas would agree with this type of “a priori”.

In other words, our understanding is finite, partial, not complete.

History, culture, language, etc might also be considered an a priori constraint. But, again, such a limit does not necessarily jeopardize our ability to arrive at the truth … it just circumscribes it. We cannot know the whole truth with our natural reason but we can know some of the truth.

That’s why faith is necessary if we are to have a complete picture of what is really going on.