Between Scholastics And Pragmatists: The Mddb Philosophy Debate

[Seraphim32]

I found a great page about Helen Keller, and strongly suggest you read it.

I found this line especially interesting: "She brought me my hat, and I knew I was going out into the warm sunshine. We walked down the path to the well-house, attracted by the fragrance of the honeysuckle with which it was covered."

Even before she knew what language was she had an understanding of cause and effect. When the hat is presented it is followed by going out into the warm sunshine.

[Ahab]

I found this line especially interesting: "She brought me my hat, and I knew I was going out into the warm sunshine. We walked down the path to the well-house, attracted by the fragrance of the honeysuckle with which it was covered."

Even before she knew what language was she had an understanding of cause and effect. When the hat is presented it is followed by going out into the warm sunshine.

You seem to have a limited sense about what language is. What makes you think she didn't always have some concept of language?

[Ahab]

So what is light "really"? It depends on how you measure it!

Nope. It doesn't "depend" on how we measure it. It is what it is, and with experience and "sense data" we can know what it is and even share our knowledge about it with others so that they too may know as we know, and see as we see, as we become one with the light.

I kinda like that phrase, sense data. I wonder who first came up with that one?

You mean that man is the measure of all things? Oh golly it couldn't mean that could it?...

No, but that doesn't stop us from communicating what we know about things, and eventually knowing all things.

[Seraphim32]

People do that all the time. Most people like to share what they think because they think others might benefit from their thoughts, and most of us are wrong at least once in a while.

The problem, though, is Hume is making objective, authoritative claims throughout his writings. He doesn't say "this is how I percieve things, but I could be totally wrong;" he is making claims! He is attempting to say how things are, which his philosophy undermines.

[Seraphim32]

You seem to have a limited sense about what language is. What makes you think she didn't always have some concept of language?

I didn't mean to say she didn't have any concept of language, but I do wonder what sort of language she would have had a concept of if she couldn't hear, see, or understand sign language. She could communicate in a very basic way (i.e. crying out and retreating when feeling pain), but I wouldn't consider this language.

[Seraphim32]

Heh, what is your basis for believing that? I think you're presuming you know what it's like to be a turtle.

We can begin by asking what the best way to gain an understanding of a turtle, or any other life form for that matter, would be. For me, the turing test and simple observation come to mind. Because I cannot directly experience the world as a turtle I have only observations to rely on. I can see how a turtle responds to stimuli. I suppose I don't see turtles as conscious and rational because the animal type does not behave in any way that would lead me to believe otherwise.

There have been more complicated examples, such as Koko the gorilla who appeared to be able to communicate using sign language. The following link is a brief summary about the problems with the assumption that Koko could actually communiucate:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2443/are-gorillas-using-sign-language-really-communicating-with-humans

Are there things that lead you to believe animals are more than I have suggested?

[Ahab]

The problem, though, is Hume is making objective, authoritative claims throughout his writings. He doesn't say "this is how I percieve things, but I could be totally wrong;" he is making claims! He is attempting to say how things are, which his philosophy undermines.

People do that kind of thing all the time too, or at least some kind of people.

That doesn't mean they're always right, though. is this really a revelation to you?

[Ahab]

I didn't mean to say she didn't have any concept of language, but I do wonder what sort of language she would have had a concept of if she couldn't hear, see, or understand sign language. She could communicate in a very basic way (i.e. crying out and retreating when feeling pain), but I wouldn't consider this language.

It still is, though.

I've heard that about 80% of our communication is through our body language, at least when we can see a body. I know she couldn't see with her eyes, or hear with her ears, but others could see or hear her and she could communicate to others with her body language. That was her language, and I'm sure she could sense that others could understand her, at least sometimes.

I think there's also a lot we can sense with our spirits when we try to understand each other.

[Ahab]

Are there things that lead you to believe animals are more than I have suggested?

Heh, yes, but I'm not sure I can adequately communicate those things I have sensed to you. God has told me that all "spirits" are "intelligences", and he wasn't just talking about us or our spirits. There are different orders of animals, so I'm not saying they're all the same or the same order of intelligence, but I have seen signs that many animals are intelligent, even though not as intelligent as we are. I admit that turtles are probably not near the top of the list, but animals (or creatures) like dolphin and whales and cats and dogs and monkeys, etc, are pretty dang bright when compared to a lot of our kind. It was supposedly a snake that was smart enough to deceive Eve.

[Ahab]

Good question.

My direct subjective experience of God confirming that this is true. We call it a "testimony".

Do you know why we call it a testimony? Because God gave his testimony to you when he confirmed that to you. That was his testimony, through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and now it is your own testimony as you share what God has told you. The testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophecy.

Just like in a court of law, you're supposed to share the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. You can still tell jokes and try to be funny at least once in a while, though.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

Well, technically then the instrument detecting light would be the measure of all things, not man....

No, it would be an extension of our senses like a telescope.

[mfbukowski]

Which all begs the question of why Hume was writing in the first place, if all he was really doing was sharing a personal, subjective experience that at several points undermines itself.

I think you are misunderstanding his argument. I doubt that it is likely that you will find a flaw which has not been discovered by professional philosophers in the last 300 years.

[mfbukowski]

I found this line especially interesting: "She brought me my hat, and I knew I was going out into the warm sunshine. We walked down the path to the well-house, attracted by the fragrance of the honeysuckle with which it was covered."

Even before she knew what language was she had an understanding of cause and effect. When the hat is presented it is followed by going out into the warm sunshine.

So you really want to say that she understood causation because the hat preceded going into the sun? Are you serious?

Hats cause one to go into the sun? This is precisely the kind of thing Hume was arguing against. And you think you found a new flaw in Hume, with this kind of logic?

[mfbukowski]

The problem, though, is Hume is making objective, authoritative claims throughout his writings. He doesn't say "this is how I percieve things, but I could be totally wrong;" he is making claims! He is attempting to say how things are, which his philosophy undermines.

It is becoming very clear that you don't understand anything about this.

[volgadon]

Do you know why we call it a testimony? Because God gave his testimony to you when he confirmed that to you. That was his testimony, through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and now it is your own testimony as you share what God has told you. The testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophecy.

Just like in a court of law, you're supposed to share the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. You can still tell jokes and try to be funny at least once in a while, though.

What is truth?

[Nathair/|\]

`A brilliant philosopher from whom I've learned a great deal said:

In fact, in all cases "what works best" is a pretty good definition of truth generally speaking. A moral principle can be said to be true because it "works best for humanity" just as a scientific principle can be said to be true if it works better than the other hypotheses.

I can call a rock an altar when I use it as such, but if we were creating a new language, is there any reason we couldn't call this a stallion?

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjQyWn5Ljz88lSBMDEUGX9b32SHhwTclL7jn15EUxn7HbU0nhw

Beyond that, unless I can cite St. Hildegarde, Black Elk or Iolo Morganwg, I have little to contribute to this thread except smart donkey remarks.

[MiserereNobis]

Beyond that, unless I can cite St. Hildegarde, Black Elk or Iolo Morganwg, I have little to contribute to this thread except smart donkey remarks.

St. Hildegarde was recently named a Doctor of the Church!

(and I'm a fan of smart donkey remarks)

[Seraphim32]

It still is, though.

I've heard that about 80% of our communication is through our body language, at least when we can see a body. I know she couldn't see with her eyes, or hear with her ears, but others could see or hear her and she could communicate to others with her body language. That was her language, and I'm sure she could sense that others could understand her, at least sometimes.

I think there's also a lot we can sense with our spirits when we try to understand each other.

I think the major thing that distinguishes actual language from more rudimentary forms of communication is intent. If Helen Keller thought something like "I am going to do action x since I expect y will follow" I would be okay with calling it a language of sorts. This is different than a rat who pushes a button or jumps through a hoop because there is a stimulating reward at the end. The best way we have of seeing the difference is observation and methods like the turing test that look for signs of intelligence and introspection.

[Seraphim32]

I think you are misunderstanding his argument. I doubt that it is likely that you will find a flaw which has not been discovered by professional philosophers in the last 300 years.

I am sure that you are well aware that there are both propnents and critics of Hume, and not all the critics are Catholics. I am not claiming to be pointing out anything new. The criticisms I highlight come from other philosophers like Anscombe, Miller, and my atheist, German Idealist professor from undergrad. I admit that I did not go into much detail in my criticisms, but I can assure you I am not the only one making such criticisms, and never claimed to be original.

I'll give one more brief example about how Hume seems to undermine himself. Throughout his Treatise he argues against the idea of causality. As I am sure you are aware, Hume claims that reason is the slave of human passions. This statement implies that reason is oriented towards the passions by being its servant/ slave; a causal connection. Would you deny that in stating "reason is the slave of the passions" Hume is claiming a connection between reason and the passions? What kind of connection do you think it is? Do you think Hume is claiming that this connection is a matter of fact, or is Hume claiming this connection as a subjective observation?

It is becoming very clear that you don't understand anything about this.

Funny, I had a similar sentiment. I am curious as to how you have arrived at your conclusion. Perhaps I am so basic that your words, each more brilliant than the next, soars over my head; or perhaps you have so immersed yourself in absurd sophistry that you now believe whatever it takes to maintain your humanist world-view. Who knows?

I truly wish to understand this idea of how language and pragmatism undermines Aristotle, I really do, but I just don't see how causality is a projection of the mind/ brain. It isn't because I haven't encountered the arguments. In both undergraduate and graduate studies the majority of my time has been spent with thinkers who reject the Scholastic tradition for early mordern or post-modern thought, but there arguments have never seemed persuasive. In fact, I think many of the problems that now plague society stem from the rejection of the virtue ethics of the Scholastic tradition. In the end, it just seems so much more likely that the regularity and causal chains by which not only I, but everyone I talk to, perceives the world is a result of an objective world that can be perceived because it is intelligible as it is. Can we claim this with 100% assurity? Of course not. We can't claim anything with 100% assurity.

[mfbukowski]

I'll give one more brief example about how Hume seems to undermine himself. Throughout his Treatise he argues against the idea of causality. As I am sure you are aware, Hume claims that reason is the slave of human passions. This statement implies that reason is oriented towards the passions by being its servant/ slave; a causal connection. Would you deny that in stating "reason is the slave of the passions" Hume is claiming a connection between reason and the passions? What kind of connection do you think it is? Do you think Hume is claiming that this connection is a matter of fact, or is Hume claiming this connection as a subjective observation?

This is part of a really good and substantive post and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this further.

I think the major problem here continually that I see in our discussion is what Whitehead would call the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness" which is related to Ryle's "category mistake" but it is not really the same. Fundamentally the error is supposing that because we have a word for an abstract concept, that somehow turns the abstract concept into a "thing" and makes the abstraction concrete.

Nouns have a funny way of doing that because they are names of things - we are taught that throughout our lives. So for some reason we suppose that if it's a noun, it is names a concrete thing. An example of this is the word "virtue". We can use it in a sentence as the subject of a sentence, we can list a number of virtues, we can write tomes on the best virtues for someone to have, etc, but the bottom line is that acting virtuously is what we are speaking of when we speak of "virtue"; on it's own the word "virtue" points, signifies or represents no concrete "thing" at all.

You cannot weigh virtue, it is a linguistic idea made concrete as an abstraction from a description of virtuous behavior. Yet thinking it is a thing, we could debate the "nature of virtue" and what kind of a "thing" it is when it is no-thing at all. It is a linguistic trap of the way we speak.

"Cause" is another word like that- I think clearly it can be used correctly most importantly in a legal sense- "His drunkeness caused the accident".

This is perhaps highly relevant here because presumably I would think that we could say that here is a clear way in which a mental state, which we will call "drunkeness" was the direct cause of the accident. If he had not been drunk, we might say, the accident would not have happened. In terms of liability and attributing damages, we can now deduce that the drunken person should be liable for the damages as the cause of the accident. Pragmatically speaking, in the real world, that is what the word "cause" means. Lightning struck a tree and was the "cause" of the fire. The criminal pulled the trigger and was the cause of the death. The rock rolled down the mountain and caused a landslide.

These are all clear, pragmatic uses of the word "cause". One event causes another event.

But is it so simple? Not to the philosopher! The philosopher comes along and asks "Ah yes! But what caused the man to be drunk?" Suddenly we have an infinite regress of alleged "causes" which we can dream up. Clearly he was drunk because he drank a fifth of whiskey. But why did he do that? Because his wife left him. Why did she do that? Because they had a fight........take it a hundred steps back ... Because he learned the behavior from his Grandfather... another hundred steps... Because Adam fell and brought sin into the world. So the whole chain was Adam's fault.

Wait- one more step. It was actually God's fault for putting the tree in the garden in the first place and being the first cause of the whole mess in the beginning.

Absurd. Can't you see that this chain of causes thing is absurd? It takes the whole notion to extremes just because we had to assign liability for a drunk driving a car which was in an accident.

Speaking about causes starts out as a simple pragmatic matter, and ends up at absurd lengths seeing "causes" everywhere just because we want to sit and dream them up. It invents unreal "causes" and then fancy mechanisms and "realms" of causes of different types just because we need a practical way to get things done- to make the gear turn the wheel to hit the switch to turn on the gizmo which shoots the gun and hits the target. There are practical causes and then there are abstract realms of "causation" all generated out of the imagination of some philosopher.

So now- is "reason" a "slave" to "passions"? Is there some "causal" relationship there?

Of course not. It's the old philosopher dreaming stuff up again. We have a human who can think and who also wants things. We are organisms- unified organisms with spirits who want to get things done. We want to get married (a nice way to say "sex") we want to have a job so we can get some money to live and carry on an independent life. So what do we do? We think about how we can grow independent of our parents. First we need money- then a place to live, then getting married, a house, a car, a belly full of beans, two chickens in every pot.

We figure out how to do that. We go to school. We get trained. We get a job. We fall in love. We buy a house etc. All the time we are doing this we are thinking about how to do it all. What school? What training? Be a philosopher or a plumber? This woman/man or that woman/man?

We are thinking and weighing options- deciding where our talents and desires lie etc. This is human behavior sometimes it was what we call "rational" and sometimes it is what we call "emotional", but most of the time it is a blend of the two.

Which "causes" which? Does the emotional side "cause" the rational side to make certain decisions? Not really. Does the rational side "cause" the emotional side to make decisions? Not really.

It's just thinking. It's deciding. It's subjective brain activity which allows us to decide how to act. It's action. It's catching the ball and running for the end zone. It's acting and being acted upon. It is dynamic human activity. Only when you sit down in a chair and light your pipe, or start hitting the old root beer, and go off into the "abstract realm" of fantasy does one even ask if the so -called "passions" whatever they are supposed to be- are ruling so called "reason" or whatever that is supposed to be, or vice-versa.

The entire question is purposeless nonsense. It's words. It's nothing more.

So is Hume right or Aristotle right? Neither really. Both are ultimately metaphysical silliness, but at least Hume saw that Aristotle was making up stuff out of whole cloth. He put holes in the cloth, but he should have seen that the cloth itself was cut out of the emperor's new clothes! Ultimately there was nothing there. Hume just didn't take it far enough.

[mfbukowski]

I went back to see if there were any new threads, and there were. See what kind of nonsense this talk "causes"?

The thread is titled: "Does God Cause Natural Disasters"?

We are all aware of the stories in the Bible and Book of Mormon where God destroyed the wicked by earthquakes, fire, famine, floods etc. Do you think that God really did use natural disasters to destroy the wicked or do you think it was just how people of that time viewed natural disasters? Do you believe God still uses natural disasters to warn people or destroy the wicked. Are there any natural disasters in the past 200 years that you think were caused by God? If not, then do you believe that people are less wicked today then they were in ancient times? If God does use natural disasters in modern times, do you think His message is lost on the wicked?

[mfbukowski]

And then of course we have the problem of free will if God was the First Cause and everything is involved through causal links. I guess he was the cause of everything that happens then.

Now we need some kind of abstract realm to invent fee will I suppose....

Edited November 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Anscombe and Wittgenstein were both Catholic (arguably for W., not at all arguable for A.) and neither was an Aristotelian and both were (linguistic) analytic philosophers. What does that tell you?

[Spammer]

Hello mfbukowski,

I've had a few days to reflect on the issues. I viewed the Rorty clip, too. Would it be a correct for me to say that Pragmatism assigns language the role of being the sole mediator between our subjective experiences and the external world? Is it also correct to say that our language is rooted in paradigms of thought that are relative and historically contingent? It seems that, if true, Pragmatism itself is a paradigm of thought that is contingent. If it's true that we are only able to access the objective world through language, and all language is contingent and rooted in subjectivity, and we only know through our language, then there is an absolute barrier between subjective experience and the outside world that cannot be pierced in anyway. The true nature of external objects as they are in themselves is absolutely unknowable. Take your example of Jupiter. We only call it Jupiter based on our current paradigm of thought. Change that paradigm, and Jupiter is no longer a planet. It may be a planet or it may be something else entirely. No matter, we can never really know what Jupiter really is to itself, for itself, and in itself. That kind of information is not able to be apprehended and is wholly inaccessible to us. Following from all of this, if even Pragmatism is contingent (and how can it not be contingent, given the underlying premise that there is no direct, unmediated link between subjective experience and material objects; there is no direct apprehension of the inner essence of an object, since no such essences exist), then, like any language-based truth claims, Pragmatism undermines itself.

This leads to my final set of questions. You have mentioned a personal, subjective experience of God that is the foundation of your testimony. Is your awareness and conceptual understanding of that experience not also rooted in and mediated by a historically contingent paradigm of thought and mediated by language? It seems that the experience of direct spirit to spirit communication, for it to be objectively real, must bypass completely any and all linguistic conventions and paradigms. It seems that the same limitation applies, unless it can be shown (not merely taken as axiomatic, i.e., by assertion) that spiritual experiences are different. That is, it must be the case that your subjective experience of one external object (e.g., Jupiter) and your subjective experience of a different external object (e.g., God) are not equally dependent upon and governed by contingent paradigms of thought and linguistic constructs. Is it your claim that your inner experience of God is not subject to this limitation? Does that experience transcend any and all linguistic paradigms and constructs?

I can't see any way for even subjective religious experiences to escape the corrosion of relativism if Pragmatism is true. In the end, it seems to me that Pragmatism, to the extent that it denies the possibility of direct apprehension and understanding of the nature of external objects as they are in themselves, is wholly incompatible with religious belief, which presumes the existence of the Absolute and the ability of those who have religious faith to break through and have a direct, mystical encounter with God - an encounter that completely pierces through and transcends language and concept, and erases the boundary between subject and object. Subject and object become one. It seems such an encounter is precluded unless language and paradigms can be transcended in the case of subjective experiences of the divine. If they cannot, and even the mystics' own reported experiences of direct, unmediated enounters with the divine are in fact necessarily mediated by historically-contingent language and concept, then notions of the authenticity of all subjective religious experiences - including yours - are doomed. But if they are transcended in that one case, why can they not also be transcended in other cases through the experience of the divine? The elimination of subject and object through union with God is believed, in the ancient mystical tradition, to grant direct knowledge to the mystic of the inner nature of things - the same knowledge that God has of those things. The mystic's contingent knowledge of Jupiter is replaced by God's transcendent, absolute knowledge of Jupiter through the mystic's subjective experience and union with the divine. In this view, it is through subjective spiritual experiences that direct knowledge of objects as they are in themselves can be acquired. If subjective religious experiences really are authentic (i.e., they transcend the limitations imposted by language and are the sole means through which such transcendence can be experienced), then Pragmatism is doubly undermined. Put another way, I can't see a way for the statements "Pragmatism is valid" and "my inner, subjective spiritual experience is real" to both be true. They are mutually exclusive; each statement undermines the other.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Spammer

[TAO]

Okay one thing; keep in mind that my use of postmodern pragmatism is different than mfbukowski's. So we may say different, and sometimes contradictory things. That's okay though; pragmatisism is a very vauge philosphy, and allows for alot of interpretations.

If Pragmatism is contingent (and how can it not be contingent, given the underlying premise that there is no direct, unmediated link between subjective experience and material objects; there is no direct apprehension of the inner essence of an object, since no such essences exist), then, like any language-based truth claims, Pragmatism undermines itself.

Pragmaticism doesn't asssert it's own objectivity, so it can't undermine itself.

It simply says, here's a useful paradigm, if you feel like using it, use it. We think you will like it.

You see, pragmaticism is a pardox, in one sense of the word (at least the postmodern variety). We accept that it is impossible to prove our own existance, or to prove most things. And yet, we feel that we should believe in them anyways, and do our lives actions based upon it. We realize that we have limited sight. And yet, it's what we have, so we use it. We realize we will never be able to create a perfectly descriptive language. And yet, we try to create as descriptive a language as possible. We realize the futility of the basic concepts, but still try and reach for them. It's unsusal like that; but it works remarkably well.

If it's true that we are only able to access the objective world through language, and all language is contingent and rooted in subjectivity, and we only know through our language, then there is an absolute barrier between subjective experience and the outside world that cannot be pierced in anyway.

I'd digress with mfbukowski on this point; I think there is thought without language. On the other hand, there is no communication without language. And language has great influence on thought, though not being the originator of it.

the true nature of external objects as they are in themselves is absolutely unknowable.

No, not absolutely unknowable. Merely unprovable; you can only assert objectivity for a very limited number of things. Then again, my pragmatism is a tiny bit different from mfbukowski's.

Take your example of Jupiter. We only call it Jupiter based on our current paradigm of thought. Change that paradigm, and Jupiter is no longer a planet. It may be a planet or it may be something else entirely.

Well of course. All 'Jupiter' is is a word that 'points' (using computer science language here) to all of our experienes which we identify as being related to a certain idea. However, it is muddle much more, in fact. Because you see; language has progressed us alot. Much of our knowledge of Jupiter is dependent on language. So, we, may, for instance, never have seen Jupiter with our own eyes. Instead, we may have looked at a picture on Wikipedia, taken with a satellite. And so ultimately, our idea of Jupiter doesn't then point to the actual object, but it points to the pictures and communication we have heard which we tie up all together. In this sense, the universe is a bunch of things pointing to other things pointing to other things. Our idea of Jupiter is really simply all of our experiences with it. And our experiences are quite varietized, and not necessarily direct observations of the object at hand.

No matter, we can never really know what Jupiter really is to itself, for itself, and in itself. That kind of information is not able to be apprehended and is wholly inaccessible to us.

Well of course. We have to make a practical assumption. This is where pramatists seperate from skeptics; there are practical assumptions that can be made without proof. In this case, we trust our senses.

Is your awareness and conceptual understanding of that experience not also rooted in and mediated by a historically contingent paradigm of thought?

It is. And I msut say... so what? All thought is paradigmed; we cannot get away from that except by not thinking. I'd prefer to think, and deal with the issues of paradigm as I come along with them.

It seems that the experience of direct spirit to spirit communication, for it to be objectively real, must bypass completely any and all linguistic conventions and paradigms.

The spirit can be considered a sense; it is no more objective than our other senses are. But we can choose to trust them based on practical assumption. We can choose to trust our own senses because we want to.

That is, it must be the case that your subjective experience of one external object (e.g., Jupiter) and your subjective experience of a different external object (e.g., God) are not equally dependent upon and governed by contingent paradigms of thought and linguistic constructs.

No, they are equally dependent on thought paradigms. We all have paradigms. Again, so what?

Is it your claim that your inner experience of God is not subject to this limitation? Does that experience transcend any and all linguistic paradigms and constructs?

No, this isn't mfb's claim (if I'm reading correctly). On the other hand though, judging form our observation of communication with the spirit; it does overcome certain inherent problems with language. It actually conveys true meaning... through feelings. It doesn't scrap things out like regular talking does. Thus, one could say it is better... but not any less 'subjective' so to say. Nonetheless, I am willing to trust it because I want to.

I can't see any way for even subjective religious experiences to escape the corrosion of relativism if Pragmatism is true.

Why do you want it to escape relativism?

In the end, it seems to me that Pragmatism, to the extent that it denies the possibility of direct apprehension and understanding of the nature of external objects as they are in themselves, is wholly incompatible with religious belief, which presumes the existence of the Absolute and the ability of those who have religious faith to break through and have a direct, mystical encounter with God - an encounter that completely pierces through and transcends language and concept, and erases the boundary between subject and object. Subject and object become one.

Well duh it wholely denies direct possibilities. That's part of the point. However, it's not incompatible because it allows for practical assumptions. God can be one of those assumptions, due to a number of reasons (a system of divine justice, for instance). Because pragmatism allows assumptions, we don't need this 'objective surety' to do things. We simply have to have the desire. I totally realize that my sense of the Spirit could be a complete illusion. But you know what, I'm going to believe in it anyways. I can't prove it, but I don't have to.

You are in that 'objectivity' paradigm; believing you need proof to believe in things. In my view of things, that isn't the case.

It seems such an encounter is precluded unless language and paradigms can be transcended in the case of subjective experiences of the divine

Why do you need an objective encounter with the divine to believe in him?

If they cannot, and even the mystics' own reported experiences of direct, unmediated enounters with the divine are in fact necessarily mediated by historically-contingent language and concept, then notions of the authenticity of all subjective religious experiences - including yours - are doomed.

Says whom? Being in a pardigm doesn't doom your ideas.

Put another way, I can't see a way for the statements "Pragmatism is valid" and "my inner, subjective spiritual experience is real" to both be true. They are mutually exclusive; each statement undermines the other.

That's because you think we need an objective experience to believe your experience is real. You don't. Belief isn't dependent on that. You can believe without full proof of things, if you want to.

Edited November 5, 2012 by TAO