Between Scholastics And Pragmatists: The Mddb Philosophy Debate

[MiserereNobis]

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?

That the Catholic Church has room for varying philosophies... if it were not so, poor St. Augustine's books would be on the Index

Aristotle is not dogma, though (obviously) the most prevalent understanding of declared dogma is Aristotelian.

Edited November 5, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[mfbukowski]

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.

Excellent question - and I am glad someone is actually reading this and thinking about it.

No it doesn't "undermine itself" because it recognizes from the beginning that even it's own way of viewing itself is contingent. The whole presumption is that whatever works is whatever works. Rorty actually got out of the "philosophy business" and is seen by many as more of a literary critic engaged in literary criticism than anything else. If you read his later books, he talks a lot about writers who were not "philosophers" by any stretch of the imagination. He talks a lot about Harold Bloom- a literary critic- in fact Rorty's whole notion of what he calls an "ironist" is right out of Bloom. An ironist is one who understands that all he is is a sum of his linguistic contingencies and uses that knowledge to re-create himself in whatever image he sees as what he wants to be, all based on contingent factors.

Your argument here is kind of like one who says that Mormonism "undermines itself by not believing in the Bible" because we believe in continuing revelation and an open canon. Mormons believe that yes, there is scripture, and yes it is important, but "insofar as it is translated correctly"- meaning that its interpretation can be modified by further revelation.

Just as the Mormon belief that God is dynamic and scriptures are dynamic doesn't "undermine itself" neither does Pragmatism undermine itself. Pragmatism never asserts that even Pragmatism is the "ultimate theory of everything" - indeed, if it did, it would be prone to your criticism. But it doesn't.

The idea is continually that "what works, works until something better comes along". If Seraphim revolutionizes Aristotelianism and it becomes re-accepted world wide as THE future and upcoming Theory of Everything a good Pragmatist would go with it until it is seen as unworkable- which I personally believe it eventually would.

The Pragmatist is like a doctor- he is there to put himself out of business by healing bad ideas. We will always have doctors- it is an attitude- a way of seeing things- a desire to do something to make it better. That is what Pragmatists really are. That's what Wittgenstein was, what William James was, what Dewey was and what Rorty was. None of those really thought of themselves as "philosophers" and certainly not as metaphysicians. They thought of themselves as practitioners of clear thinking and instructors of a methodology.

Saying Pragmatism undermines itself is to misunderstand it as a philosophy- it is not. It is a methodology. It is like science in that respect. Science does not undermine itself by coming up with a new theory of whatever- that is what it is expected to do. How would one "undermine" the scientific method? One cannot precisely because it IS a method. If a better method comes along, true scientists and true Pragmatists should be the first to adopt it. And once they do, it will become incorporated into the "New Pragmatism" or "New Science". It is an attitude more than a method.

I see Pragmatism as kind of a secular form of what Mormons would

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 am really loving this. And no that has nothing to do with Mcdonald's. This is the best conversation I have had here, period and thanks for that.

First I will answer your question as Rorty might answer it and then I will answer for myself. Rorty would acknowledge (I think) that yes it is all contingent and so is his own set of ideas. For an analysis of this you might want to read "Contingency Irony and Solidarity" in the chapters on contingency of the self. This is precisely what the "strong poet" or "ironist" is aware of - he is an "ironist" because he sees the irony of KNOWING that all he is is a bundle of contingent vocabularies precisely while he strives to create his own vocabulary- his own way of seeing and speaking about the world.

Now I will answer more for me. I see myself as an ironist but in a different sense because I put my experience of myself as a kind of an ultimate "cogito" in almost a Cartesian sense. Even to say the words is to get it wrong so I cannot utter my "cogito" but it is based in the notion that I experience myself as self-existent- I cannot imagine myself ever not existing. That is my direct experience of myself, and always has been, and is one of the cornerstones of why I joined the church. When I heard about the idea of the Mormon pre-earth life, it came totally naturally to me, because on self-reflection, I had always believed that about myself. I had always been positive that somehow this stuff that makes me "me" has always been "me" in some sense. I remember thinking that as a child- as early as age 3. I remember my third birthday quite distinctly and have earlier memories as well, but all of them include the idea that I have always been "me".

But now epistemology enters. How do I know that? I just know it directly and inexplicably. I know it like I know the color red- I cannot describe it, I cannot tell you what red is, using words. I know what it is, I agree with others when a car is "red" that it indeed is red.

And I think that all of my knowledge of virtually everything is contingent except of the knowledge that I am. So ultimately does that make me a Cartesian? I don't know and I don't care. THAT is the point where I become an ironist. I know my direct experiences only - but are those contingent and programmed by my own background?

The key is that at some point all this stuff is silly to worry about AND DOESNT MATTER. That is where the Pragmatist takes over. I can only know what I know, period, and do the best I can with the tools I have, and the rest? Fergetaboutit. !!

You can only take this stuff so far- how do I know what I know that I know? Who cares- fergetaboutit! It's time for lunch. That is where action comes it. One can sit in one's chair and contemplate one's navel all day but that is not LIFE! You do the best you can, and then you have to live and take action. Pragmatism is always a dynamic and action based point of view.

Continued below.

[mfbukowski]

Continuation of post 177

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,......

Whoa- wait a minute! Are you actually saying that you perceive things directly "as they are" independent of what your brain tells you they are? Do you really want to go there?

.....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.

Of course you can have a direct encounter with God!! That is precisely what Pragmatism and an understanding of subjective experience SAVES!

Haven't you heard the argument that this "direct encounter" is only happening "in your mind"? That is a hallucination of sorts? That you made it all up? That it was a moment of insanity or your subconscious going wacko for a few minutes? That near death experiences are not "real" because it happens "in your head"?? How can a "direct encounter" with God happen in scientific allegedly "objective" reality? How come I didn't see what you did? Because it was "all in your head" and therefore not real!

You cannot believe that what we see is "real" AND that we can see God which makes him "real" unless you account for the fact that others do not see visions and angels etc. and call them "real". You MUST make a distinction between what everyone sees and what I see to have any kind of religious experience be seen as "valid" in any sense whatsoever.

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.

Not at all!! Of course the experience of subject and object "becoming one" is what can be experienced, the loss of self in the other. But who is experiencing that loss? There cannot be total loss of self and still have an experience.

But the real insight is that language cannot do the job of describing that mystical experience because the experience transcends language, and we right now are speaking on the pivot-point of paradox. That is the whole point of what I am saying. We are now discussing what Wittgenstein would say is beyond the capacity of out language-games to handle. We are discussing language reflecting on itself and it is starting to break down! This indeed is also where I think Rorty also breaks down. For there to be an "ironist" who knows that all is contingent, ultimately we are left with asking WHO is it who knows all is contingent. This is where I invoke epistemology. There is always an "I" of some kind who knows that he knows nothing except what he has experienced for himself, all of which might- or might not - be contingent. Ultimately is a huge mystery and we are left stumbling in darkness- in an existential void which is only saved by Pragmatism. And so we build our beliefs based on our experiences not knowing if we are right or wrong. And that is the beginning of building our little ironist worlds.

The experience of God is direct and ineffable. There is literally nothing we can say about it. Is it real or imagined? It doesn't matter. I know it happens and has happened but there is only stumbling language to handle it. "I know this church is true" is about all one can say. That isn't right, but nothing else one could say would be right either.

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

Yep. I would say that too. But saying it makes it not so. That is the nature of contingent language. It cannot express much. This direct experience is non-linguistic and so also non-objective and therefore non-sharable. And here we are trying to share it and put it into words. No wonder it sounds contradictory. Is the sound of a trumpet red or blue?

. 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.

Nah. No one says that one gets visions like that. I would like to see radio waves. I really don't think I will get a vision doing that.

In this view, it is through subjective spiritual experiences that direct knowledge of objects as they are in themselves can be acquired.

We don't need visions for that. I see the computer in front of me directly as it is in itself as much as anyone can. But I don't see it as a computer technician would see it, and he would not see it as a machine for talking to you about philosophy. But both are just as "valid" ways of seeing it.

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.

Nope. Strawman. No one says that. You are letting language get in the way.

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.

Then you need to change your definition of "valid" because you are stuck in the old paradigm as if there is more that can be said about it than Pragmatism allows you to say.

[mfbukowski]

That the Catholic Church has room for varying philosophies... if it were not so, poor St. Augustine's books would be on the Index

Aristotle is not dogma, though (obviously) the most prevalent understanding of declared dogma is Aristotelian.

If you go back and look at the thread you will realize that I said that in the beginning. I have no argument with the church- only those doctrines which rely on Aristotle.

I really would love to find out how Anscombe truly felt about the "Real Presence" though, and the Trinity because both of those rely, I think, on Aristotle and Neoplatonism.

I would wager she ignored those explanations and stuck with a Wittgensteinian understanding of it all being something about which one could not "speak clearly" and therefore not to be said at all. That's fine. Were I still Catholic I would probably handle it that way myself. It is a Mystery and no one knows including the "Church Fathers". Would I admit it publicly and denounce the church or some such silliness? Of course not. I would just remain a quiet believer knowing that some things were beyond our ability to understand.

But this is not about the church it is about Aristotle. And in my opinion he just plain got it wrong. He could not have gotten it "right" from my point of view because he did not have the benefit of 2000 years of critics jumping on his ideas and arguing about them.

I can't wait to get to heaven and sit down with him, or take a class with him to see how he has changed it all to answer all the critics he has had in the last 2000 years. It's really a pretty unfair debate for the poor guy- to take his positions from so long ago and hold him to them now.

There is a long record of philosophers rejecting their earlier beliefs and re-casting them later in life. It makes one wonder!

[mfbukowski]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Why do you want it to escape relativism?

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.

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

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

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.

For what it's worth I agree with you completely. So quit saying I don't ! We are definitely on the same page here, dude!

[Ahab]

What is truth?

Truth is what is (when pertaining to the present), what was (when pertaining to the past), and what will be (when pertaining to the future).

Why did you ask me? Would you ever believe what I tell you?

[Ahab]

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.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. What did you intend to convey? If I don't understand your intent does that mean language wasn't involved, or that I just didn't understand your language? What kind of language are you talking about? Do you know about body language? Do you know how to correctly understand that, and English? Do you know what body language and English can tell someone who can discern how to correctly understand iether one? We're talking English now and I'm still not sure you understand what I mean. Does that mean we're not usuing language or communication now? How do you know when you correctly understand someone's intent?

[mfbukowski]

Why did you ask me? Would you ever believe what I tell you?

yes Ahab. We all believe what you tell us without question, don't you know that?

[Ahab]

yes Ahab. We all believe what you tell us without question, don't you know that?

Are you joshing me, again? Sometimes I'm not quite sure whether or not to take you seriously.

[RadioFreeDeath]

I think the definition of truth that Ahab gives is from the D and C. It is also in preach my gospel. I have always struggled with it because it doesnt seem to give any actual meaning to the term that I can pull. what does it mean to be what is? It seems somewhat tautological. However, it may have something to do with being. Without derailing too much, is this definition of truth at odds with a pragmatic definition of truth? or are they both different vocabularies, or opposing?

[Vance]

I think the definition of truth that Ahab gives is from the D and C. It is also in preach my gospel. I have always struggled with it because it doesnt seem to give any actual meaning to the term that I can pull. what does it mean to be what is? It seems somewhat tautological. However, it may have something to do with being. Without derailing too much, is this definition of truth at odds with a pragmatic definition of truth? or are they both different vocabularies, or opposing?

Actually, no, it is not from the D&C, but a misquote.

The D&C clearly defines truth as knowledge.

D&C 93:24 And truth is knowledge of things . . .

So, now the question is "what is knowledge?"

Just kicking the can on down the road

Edited November 5, 2012 by Vance

[RadioFreeDeath]

Actually, no, it is not from the D&C, but a misquote.

The D&C clearly defines truth as knowledge.

D&C 93:24 And truth is knowledge of things . . .

So, now the question is "what is knowledge?"

Just kicking the can on down the road

Adding in the knowledge component is easier IMHO. Knowledge is personal, subjective etc. That means that my interpretation of the real forms into knowledge when it works well in explaining whatever it is I want it to. At that point, it becomes truth. If anything that seems to me more in line with a pragmatic viewpoint than any sort of ideal viewpoint. The truth is the knowledge itself, not a seperate thing placed in a platonic sphere.

[TAO]

For what it's worth I agree with you completely. So quit saying I don't ! We are definitely on the same page here, dude!

Sorry! It's just well... you use a different language than I do. So I guess I think you disagree, even when you don't. That's my fault though. Sorry XD.

Edited November 6, 2012 by TAO

[mfbukowski]

I think the definition of truth that Ahab gives is from the D and C. It is also in preach my gospel. I have always struggled with it because it doesnt seem to give any actual meaning to the term that I can pull. what does it mean to be what is? It seems somewhat tautological. However, it may have something to do with being. Without derailing too much, is this definition of truth at odds with a pragmatic definition of truth? or are they both different vocabularies, or opposing?

In my opinion they are using different "language games" to express the same idea. To me, "what is" is what we can know. Obviously the presumption is that we CAN know truth.

For me, truth is justified belief and it is "justified" by experience.

So if "what is" is beyond experience, belief in it cannot be justified and therefore those beliefs could not be considered "true".

The Pragmatist is one who sees all of the world differently than those who see true statements as "corresponding to reality", so they effectively avoid all the issues such a viewpoint raises. The Pragmatist sees these issues pragmatically- true propositions do not "correspond" to a "reality" beyond what we can see feel and touch with our senses or our emotions- for all practical purposes there is no separation between what is real and what we experience- experience IS reality.

Since experience IS reality- there is, practically speaking, no difference between appearance and reality.

Truth becomes a property of propositions and linguistic statements- it is not a property of reality because we cannot "get down" to a reality beyond our experiences of it. We know how to use the word "true" and "false" and those meanings depend on linguistic contexts- not on any state of some un-perceivable "reality" which only exists in our imaginations.

So I would say that D&C in that verse you quoted is on "my side" in that "what is" is definitely knowable and therefore it MUST be what we can experience.

We experience "what is" directly, but we must understand that we cannot know anything beyond human experience to see if our words "correspond" to some unseen "reality"

In fact in my opinion, the Correspondence Theory of Truth - which most people THINK is what religion is all about, to me, is antithetical to religion.

It is why atheists say that spiritual experience cannot be "true" or "real" because it is "all in our heads". Yet how do humans know anything that is NOT "in their heads"?? (in a manner of speech)

Explain that one to me if you can! How can you possibly know something which no one (including yourself) has ever experienced?

So if there IS some kind of world beyond experience, we can never know anything about it. Another way of saying that is, as I have said, if it is knowable it must be able to be experienced.

Edited November 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Actually, no, it is not from the D&C, but a misquote.

The D&C clearly defines truth as knowledge.

D&C 93:24 And truth is knowledge of things . . .

So, now the question is "what is knowledge?"

Just kicking the can on down the road

Things as they are I think is what it says.

As they are experienced that is.

It could not mean "as they are NOT experienced", could it?

If that were the case, Joseph did not experience a theophany or what he experienced was not "things as they are".

That was a private, subjective experience that Joseph had. No one else was there- no one else saw what he saw.

If that is not a valid way to experience things, then we have to throw out the whole church.

That's the problem- people want things we cannot experience to be "true" and claim that the correspondence view is the only way to see truth- so that D&C quote must not mean things "as experienced" But if all we see is a "representation" of something "beyond" what we see, then Joseph could not have seen God.

He saw a fake representation of God. A mere appearance. A hallucination. An illusion. But we know that is not how it is.

And for Catholics it is "Our Lady of Fatima" and other visions. What is being seen there- "what is" or some fake mental "representation" ?

If what the mind sees is not "real", all visions and theophanies go out the window! Atheists argue that all the time- why should we agree with them??

Of course the atheists are wrong. When scientists make an observation is it "real" or is IT a "fake representation in the mind"? That would have to be the conclusion for someone who believes there is a world beyond experience.

The scientists are just as deluded by their minds as the visionaries if that is true! Reality IS experience- that is the only possible conclusion. The search for any "ontological reality" beyond experience condemns both sides- THAT is the brilliance of Pragmatism.

Edited November 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

Truth is what is (when pertaining to the present), what was (when pertaining to the past), and what will be (when pertaining to the future).

Why did you ask me? Would you ever believe what I tell you?

Did you really miss the reference?

[Vance]

Things as they are I think is what it says.

As they are experienced that is.

It could not mean "as they are NOT experienced", could it?

If that were the case, Joseph did not experience a theophany or what he experienced was not "things as they are".

That was a private, subjective experience that Joseph had. No one else was there- no one else saw what he saw.

If that is not a valid way to experience things, then we have to throw out the whole church.

While searching for that verse using "truth is", I found some other verses that were very interesting. "Truth" (in the scriptures) is directly associated with the Spirit. It becomes rather clear that (religious?) "truth" comes ONLY through the Spirit.

The ONLY way we can know if Joseph's theopany is "true" is for the Spirit to reveal it to us (or as you say, we must experience it ourselves, subjectively).

At least that is what my subjective experience is telling me.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Vance

[volgadon]

While searching for that verse using "truth is", I found some other verses that were very interesting. "Truth" (in the scriptures) is directly associated with the Spirit. It becomes rather clear that (religious?) "truth" comes ONLY through the Spirit.

The ONLY way we can know if Josephs theopany is "true" is for the Spirit to reveal it to us (or as you say, we must experience it ourselves, subjectively).

At least that is what my subjective experience is telling me.

Bravo!

This is actually one of the traditional views of Abraham's stargazing, that he reached a point where his knowledge was insufficient and the truth had to be revealed to him. We also don't see things as they really are without the spirit.

[Bill Hamblin]

The problem with modern philosophical movements (especially Post Modernism) was well understood in the first century: “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”(2 Timothy 3:7 KJV)

[mfbukowski]

We also don't see things as they really are without the spirit.

I agree with you whole-heartedly, but let me translate this into "philosophese" at least of the Pragmatic variety.

"We cannot experience all the perspectives we are capable of experiencing without integrating both the subjective and objective"

For a long time, I used this as my siggy:

"If physicalism is to be defended, the phenomenological features must themselves be given a physical account. But when we examine their subjective character it seems that such a result is impossible. The reason is that every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view, and it seems inevitable that an objective, physical theory will abandon that point of view." - Thomas Nagel, What Is It Like To Be a Bat?

Let me translate that for those unfamiliar with the jargon:

"If one wants to defend the view that all experience is based on physical brain states, then one must be able to account for the way we experience "red" or the "taste of salt" - the features of the full experience as we experience it, in physical terms. But the full experience itself of "red" can never be described in by analyzing brain chemicals because the experience is something other than those. Every subjective experience is inevitably connected with MY personal point of view- how I see it in the first person- not as another person looking into my brain and describing brain chemicals sees it! That person cannot see the "red" I see- perhaps it is slightly magenta or more orange in my experience, yet all he sees are chemicals.

Every physical description of a brain state will inevitably leave out MY perspective- what I actually SEE while the brain state is happening. Thus, physicalism can never capture the "full experience" I am having"

That is my translation- yes it's a tad longer, but I think the original is perhaps too terse for those unfamiliar with the jargon.

[mfbukowski]

The problem with modern philosophical movements (especially Post Modernism) was well understood in the first century: “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”(2 Timothy 3:7 KJV)

I decided to answer.

If you can tell me what the truth is, and how you know it is the truth by finding some "ontological reality" which no one can experience in reality, good for you!

If you have solved that problem, you have revolutionized epistemology. But I suspect you are being more mystical than philosophical and I can't fault that, certainly.

The scriptures are no more philosophical texts than they are scientific texts. Their purpose is quite different.

[mfbukowski]

Sorry! It's just well... you use a different language than I do. So I guess I think you disagree, even when you don't. That's my fault though. Sorry XD.

Ok well don't let it happen again!

[Bill Hamblin]

I decided to answer.

If you can tell me what the truth is, and how you know it is the truth by finding some "ontological reality" which no one can experience in reality, good for you!

If you have solved that problem, you have revolutionized epistemology. But I suspect you are being more mystical than philosophical and I can't fault that, certainly.

The scriptures are no more philosophical texts than they are scientific texts. Their purpose is quite different.

Be that as it may, after a quarter millennium modern philosophy has not, by its own admission, "come to a knowledge of the truth." Many even deny there is such a thing as truth. The most reasonable reaction to this is to assume that philosophy is not a reliable means to "come to a knowledge of the truth."

[mfbukowski]

Be that as it may, after a quarter millennium modern philosophy has not, by its own admission, "come to a knowledge of the truth." Many even deny there is such a thing as truth. The most reasonable reaction to this is to assume that philosophy is not a reliable means to "come to a knowledge of the truth."

Well as Rorty notes, certainly people use the word a lot and use it accurately- we all know what it means, we can go to court and correctly swear to "tell the truth" and we certainly know what a lie is. (unless you are Bill Clinton)

I don't think we particularly need to know it any better than what common sense tells us. It's when we get into all these abstract epistemological questions that we get messed up.

Of course the epistemology is important and very basic ultimately, but only important in common sense situations when people get confused by some athiest asking them if their burning in the bosom was "true" or not.

In those cases, we simply have to affirm that reality is what we experience and even science is what we experience, minus subjective experience. Science only deals with objective experiences verifiable by multiple people, not with what individuals have spiritually experienced. But objective truth is not the only kind of truth- there is also spiritual, subjective experience that is just as true as scientific experience, but of a different kind.

If you have a better explanation for those cases, I am all ears. But I don't think a better explanation exists and I have been looking during my 40 of studying this question both academically and beyond.

Edited November 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

Tao and Mfbukowski, thanks for clarifying that Pragmatism makes no claim to objectivity. Being an ironist is a requirement to maintain consistency.

Now we seem to be at the heart of the matter. Can subjective experiences be evaluated objectively, whether through scientific or some other means? An ironist like Rorty would say no, correct? Neither science nor comparing experiences will do. Science cannot measure thoughts or subjective experiences; it can only measure brain states. All we have to acquire knowledge of objective reality as individual consciousnesses is contingent, paradigmed, subjective experience. Not even a third party can determine which of two contradictory subjective experiences might better reflect reality since the third party evaluator only has his own subjective experience to go by, and that experience is just as paradigmed and contingent and disconnected from a wholly inaccessible objective reality. Appealing to tradition or scriptural authority is also useless as every human witness from the past (including prophets) lived only within their own inner, paradigmed, contingent worlds. All we have available to go by is our subjective experience, which if it works for us we assume validly reflects reality. All we can do is to compare our own subjective experience with the reported subjective experiences of others. If we encounter an experience that contradicts ours, we ground our rejection of the validity of that experience on our own subjective experience - the only possible ground available to us - and conclude the other person is deluded, lying, misinformed, etc., knowing full well that's just an assumption on our part, since we have no objective way to really be sure that we're right. Appealing to third, fourth, fifth, etc. parties is useless as no person's experience is objective. Each person is trapped within their brains, discrete consciousnesses peering out with no way to prove that anything except themselves (proven by the fact that they are experiencers) exists.

Needless to say, this approach destroys the validity of comparing experiences to determine who really did/did not receive a spiritual witness about the BoM or whether God exists. All a person has is his own inner experience of "yes, I got a confirmation" and using that experience to objectively assess someone else's experience is ruled out. I'll have to keep all of this in mind the next time someone doubts my report of never, ever having experienced anything remotely spiritual in answer to fervent prayer. "You're experience differs from mine and never the twain shall meet."

Edited November 7, 2012 by Spammer