How to stop people doing pointless degrees Watch

This discussion is closed.
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#201
Report 4 years ago
#201
(Original post by Juichiro)
They do. But their definitions often use vague words which need to be defined. You can't say 'God is the Holy Trinity' and not expect a further request for definitions.
When required they get more technical. They tend to be interested in less clinical areas that philosophers though, so they only refine when they need to say things that are specific. If you want highly logical and careful definitions, read phil of religion.
0
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#202
Report 4 years ago
#202
(Original post by cambio wechsel)
my view is that dramatic revisionings of people from history need scholarly support or shouldn't be made. It's why I asked whether you had some for your 'quivering-Descartes' theory.
I agree. But I also think that before you assume that someone is engaging in revisioning, you should first ask whether that is an opinion or a fact. Baseless claims are not good and assumptions about what someone says are no different. After all, opinions (and opinions about opinions) and claims are different.
0
cambio wechsel
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#203
Report 4 years ago
#203
(Original post by Juichiro)
x
I was thinking specifically of the meditations: "ours is not a deceiving God". Sensibly I think there is no good evidence for the claim that Descartes was anything other than the Christian he professed himself to be.

And I think it's a bit of a trick when asked "how could clever people have believed in God?" to only suppose that they really didn't and were only fitting in. Asserting something by fiat is a device atheists will usually frown on.

You'd have found a better example in Leibniz. There really is good reason to suppose that his was only a convenient Christianity. Newton, by contrast, was a religious nut even by the standards of his day: he wrote more on theology than on all other subjects combined and his devout religious beliefs (far from being a case of fitting in) were so radical as to actually put him in danger of a capital charge.

So, I think it has to be case by case and by reference to the evidence available, and that 'fear of the church' won't work here. The most distinguished living philosopher, it is Saul Kripke, is a professing Jew, and anxious to make clear that his is not merely a cultural Jewishness. He should have nothing to fear in New York in 2015, and indeed being prominently Jewish is likely the more dangerous than being atheist, to the limited extent that either is.
0
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#204
Report 4 years ago
#204
(Original post by cambio wechsel)
1.I was thinking specifically of the meditations: "ours is not a deceiving God". 2.Sensibly I think there is no good evidence for the claim that Descartes was anything other than the Christian he professed himself to be.

And 3.I think it's a bit of a trick when asked "how could clever people have believed in God?" to only suppose that they really didn't and were only fitting in. Asserting something by fiat is a device atheists will usually frown on.

4.You'd have found a better example in Leibniz. There really is good reason to suppose that his was only a convenient Christianity. Newton, by contrast, was a religious nut even by the standards of his day: he wrote more on theology than on all other subjects combined and his devout religious beliefs (far from being a case of fitting in) were so radical as to actually put him in danger of a capital charge.

So, I think it has to be case by case and by reference to the evidence available, and that 5.'fear of the church' won't work here. 6.The most distinguished living philosopher, it is Saul Kripke, is a professing Jew, and anxious to make clear that his is not merely a cultural Jewishness. He should have nothing to fear in New York in 2015, and indeed 7.being prominently Jewish is likely the more dangerous than being atheist, to the limited extent that either is.
1. I think Descartes got some hate for a concept (the evil demon thing) mentioned in the meditations. I know René never explicitly equated the evil demon with God, but I would never expect him to explicitly equate it even if he wanted to. Anyway, the Greeks already conceived it in their famous paradox.

2. Not sure if that means that Descartes was good at keeping appearances or that he actually was suffering a serious case of cognitive dissonance (no offence intended to him). See this point elaborated in point 3.

3. But I am not talking about clever people in general. I am talking about a leading figure of the Rationalism movement. A movement who believed that truth could be discovered through reason. The very leading figure that also followed materialism and believed that some life forms (only humans excluded of course) were machines. He was a dualist, but his views about the world are not too different as the current scientific worldview at a philosophical level (see mechanism, materialism). And seeing that he placed such a high value in reason makes me wonder whether his religious beliefs were true or it was just a way to avoid ending up like Galileo.

4. I don't know about Leibniz philosophy. Newton was an alchemist so I can see him having metaphysical beliefs and the like. Newton was not sworn to the 'reason towards truth' idea in the way René was. I don't think Newton radical (maybe I don't know enough about him) but I think La Mettrie was in a way a defiant René was bold enough to state the conclusions of most of what René thought (minus the rationalism philosophy).

5. Why wouldn't it? I think it is quite obvious that the Church is not happy with people turning apostates. And materialism and mechanism (which Descartes believed) when you look at them closely are great candidates to have the Church on you for blasphemy.
6. Distinguished according to some, perhaps. Not to everyone. Not sure why you're talking about him.

7. Is it? I would disagree. For a Christian, a Jewish might be worshipping the wrong God. But the atheist is saying that he does not think that there is a God. From my experience, atheism is the worse of the two in terms of preference by religious people.
0
cambio wechsel
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#205
Report 4 years ago
#205
@Juichiro

My point with regard to 'fear of the church' not doing all the work and the Kripke example was that Kripke plainly should have no consequences to fear from revealing his atheism. He doesn't, and professes his religiosity. And he is certainly the most distinguished living philosopher, come on. Here's the Leiter Report poll for the last 200 years: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blo...200-years.html
0
plasmaman
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#206
Report 4 years ago
#206
(Original post by cherryred90s)
People who correct spelling usually have nothing of value to say because they know they're wrong..I'll just leave that there
You think I was correcting spelling...?
I was correcting grammar, but call it spelling if you like.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#207
Report 4 years ago
#207
(Original post by cambio wechsel)
I was thinking specifically of the meditations: "ours is not a deceiving God". Sensibly I think there is no good evidence for the claim that Descartes was anything other than the Christian he professed himself to be.

And I think it's a bit of a trick when asked "how could clever people have believed in God?" to only suppose that they really didn't and were only fitting in. Asserting something by fiat is a device atheists will usually frown on.

You'd have found a better example in Leibniz. There really is good reason to suppose that his was only a convenient Christianity. Newton, by contrast, was a religious nut even by the standards of his day: he wrote more on theology than on all other subjects combined and his devout religious beliefs (far from being a case of fitting in) were so radical as to actually put him in danger of a capital charge.

So, I think it has to be case by case and by reference to the evidence available, and that 'fear of the church' won't work here. The most distinguished living philosopher, it is Saul Kripke, is a professing Jew, and anxious to make clear that his is not merely a cultural Jewishness. He should have nothing to fear in New York in 2015, and indeed being prominently Jewish is likely the more dangerous than being atheist, to the limited extent that either is.
I think liebiniz was a Christian? He didn't have to address problems like the problem of evil just to fit in.

Kripke is definitely a lad.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#208
Report 4 years ago
#208
(Original post by Juichiro)
1. I think Descartes got some hate for a concept (the evil demon thing) mentioned in the meditations. I know René never explicitly equated the evil demon with God, but I would never expect him to explicitly equate it even if he wanted to. Anyway, the Greeks already conceived it in their famous paradox.

2. Not sure if that means that Descartes was good at keeping appearances or that he actually was suffering a serious case of cognitive dissonance (no offence intended to him). See this point elaborated in point 3.

3. But I am not talking about clever people in general. I am talking about a leading figure of the Rationalism movement. A movement who believed that truth could be discovered through reason. The very leading figure that also followed materialism and believed that some life forms (only humans excluded of course) were machines. He was a dualist, but his views about the world are not too different as the current scientific worldview at a philosophical level (see mechanism, materialism). And seeing that he placed such a high value in reason makes me wonder whether his religious beliefs were true or it was just a way to avoid ending up like Galileo.

4. I don't know about Leibniz philosophy. Newton was an alchemist so I can see him having metaphysical beliefs and the like. Newton was not sworn to the 'reason towards truth' idea in the way René was. I don't think Newton radical (maybe I don't know enough about him) but I think La Mettrie was in a way a defiant René was bold enough to state the conclusions of most of what René thought (minus the rationalism philosophy).

5. Why wouldn't it? I think it is quite obvious that the Church is not happy with people turning apostates. And materialism and mechanism (which Descartes believed) when you look at them closely are great candidates to have the Church on you for blasphemy.
6. Distinguished according to some, perhaps. Not to everyone. Not sure why you're talking about him.

7. Is it? I would disagree. For a Christian, a Jewish might be worshipping the wrong God. But the atheist is saying that he does not think that there is a God. From my experience, atheism is the worse of the two in terms of preference by religious people.
Rationalism just means that reason alone can yield truth. It seems to be a confusion to suggest taht this implies he was an atheist, yanno, cuz he was rational. Also, he believe reason led to God. He bought into the ontological argument.
0
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#209
Report 4 years ago
#209
(Original post by KingStannis)
1. Rationalism just means that reason alone can yield truth. It seems to be a confusion to suggest taht this implies he was an atheist, yanno, cuz he was rational. Also, 2.he believe reason led to God.3. He bought into the ontological argument.
1.I do not think that René being rationalist means he is atheist. But I think that being a rationalist and believing in God means that you will accept a rational argument against the existence of God when you see one if you don't like it. Similarly, it means that you will recognise a BS argument in favour of his existence when you see one. Of course, this does not mean that God does not exist but for a rationalist it really should imo. See point 3.

2. Yes, but we know it does not. Kant knew it could not even justify his Christian ethics.

3. True. I wonder why he went all meta-physical with God instead of sticking to his logical guns.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#210
Report 4 years ago
#210
(Original post by Juichiro)
1.I do not think that René being rationalist means he is atheist. But I think that being a rationalist and believing in God means that you will accept a rational argument against the existence of God when you see one if you don't like it. Similarly, it means that you will recognise a BS argument in favour of his existence when you see one. Of course, this does not mean that God does not exist but for a rationalist it really should imo. See point 3.

2. Yes, but we know it does not. Kant knew it could not even justify his Christian ethics.

3. True. I wonder why he went all meta-physical with God instead of sticking to his logical guns.
1. Not many good reasons for atheism in those days due to a alck of scientific knowledge.

2. Maybe we can't, but many would argue reason can be used as a tool in finding God.

3. Implying metaphysics and logic are opposed?
0
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#211
Report 4 years ago
#211
(Original post by KingStannis)
1. Not many good reasons for atheism in those days due to a alck of scientific knowledge.

2. Maybe we can't, but many would argue reason can be used as a tool in finding God.

3. Implying metaphysics and logic are opposed?
2. Luckily, formal proofs are easy to check.
3. Nope, implying that René should have used the same tool (reason) for all his truth-seeking endeavours. No need to add metaphysics to the mix.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#212
Report 4 years ago
#212
(Original post by Juichiro)
2. Luckily, formal proofs are easy to check.
3. Nope, implying that René should have used the same tool (reason) for all his truth-seeking endeavours. No need to add metaphysics to the mix.
I get the distinct impression you know a little but not a lot about this subject. If he is trying to figure out metaphysical problems such as the existence of God, why would he not engage with metaphysics. And how can you engage with metaphysics without engaging with reason anyway?
0
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#213
Report 4 years ago
#213
(Original post by KingStannis)
I get the distinct impression you know a little but not a lot about this subject. If he is trying to figure out metaphysical problems such as the existence of God, why would he not engage with metaphysics. And how can you engage with metaphysics without engaging with reason anyway?
Impressions are not facts unfortunately. Existence is not a metaphysical fact. It is a physical property. And it can be tested via empirical and rational means. He had no need to pull metaphysics into this. I think neuroscientists/psychologists/physicists must have repeated something along these lines to death.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#214
Report 4 years ago
#214
(Original post by Juichiro)
Impressions are not facts unfortunately. Existence is not a metaphysical fact. It is a physical property. And it can be tested via empirical and rational means. He had no need to pull metaphysics into this. I think neuroscientists/psychologists/physicists must have repeated something along these lines to death.
If existence is a physical property, then that lends a lot of support for the ontological argument for God doesn't it?
0
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#215
Report 4 years ago
#215
(Original post by KingStannis)
If existence is a physical property, then that lends a lot of support for the ontological argument for God doesn't it?
How exactly does it lend support to the ontological argument?



[Thoughts: If a's existence cannot be tested, then a does not exist. Testability is the basis of truth when it comes to empirical matters as much as provability is in formal logic.]
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#216
Report 4 years ago
#216
(Original post by Juichiro)
How exactly does it lend support to the ontological argument?



[Thoughts: If a's existence cannot be tested, then a does not exist. Testability is the basis of truth when it comes to empirical matters as much as provability is in formal logic.]
Because a large argument against it is that existence is not a property, therefore to be the Greatest conceivable being God doesn't have to exist.

There are plenty of non testable things we consider to be true. Have you ever tried testing that you're not living in a dream?
0
cgureje
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#217
Report 4 years ago
#217
(Original post by watchingyouwatch)
I think a much more important issue is- How to stop people creating endless stupid threads where they belittle others and make broad and stupid generalisations about the value of things when clearly they are suffering from a superiority complex

How about you study Stem if you want to and other people with different but equally useful skills study what they want to
Preach !
0
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#218
Report 4 years ago
#218
(Original post by KingStannis)
1.Because a large argument against it is that existence is not a property, therefore to be the Greatest conceivable being God doesn't have to exist.

There are plenty of non testable things we consider to be true. Have you ever tried testing that you're not living in a dream?
1. Sorry, what I meant to say is that "existence is a physical property of all things in the universe". What do you mean by "to be the Greatest conceivable being God doesn't have to exist". Also, do any of those ontological argument advocates have any empirical evidence for "existence is not a property"?

2. "There are plenty of non testable things we consider to be true." True on that one, empirical and logical axioms are not testable, not without falling in a circular loop. Other than that, I fail so see what else.

3. "Have you ever tried testing that you're not living in a dream?". You first have to define what you mean by "living" and "dream". Once you define them, it should be obvious whether or not they can be tested.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#219
Report 4 years ago
#219
(Original post by Juichiro)
1. Sorry, what I meant to say is that "existence is a physical property of all things in the universe". What do you mean by "to be the Greatest conceivable being God doesn't have to exist". Also, do any of those ontological argument advocates have any empirical evidence for "existence is not a property"?

2. "There are plenty of non testable things we consider to be true." True on that one, empirical and logical axioms are not testable, not without falling in a circular loop. Other than that, I fail so see what else.

3. "Have you ever tried testing that you're not living in a dream?". You first have to define what you mean by "living" and "dream". Once you define them, it should be obvious whether or not they can be tested.
1. Google the argument and what's i'm saying should be clear. I don't think it's plausible that existence is a property, because whether or not something exists doesn't change its definition.

2. Thigns that are implausible based on what we do know, but is logically impossible to test. Stuff like other people having minds etc.

3. Living = existing in a living state. Dream = being in a dream. You can't test that.
0
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#220
Report 4 years ago
#220
(Original post by KingStannis)
I think liebiniz was a Christian? He didn't have to address problems like the problem of evil just to fit in.

Kripke is definitely a lad.
I think he was a devout and pious one, although he believed in religious tolerance he dedicated a significant amount of time to addressing the problem of evil in his Theodicy, although arguably one could say it had practical implications (after all if one could figure out why God created evil they might stop seeing different religious sects as the devil) which were relevant to his position at the court.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (58)
66.67%
No I haven't decided yet (19)
21.84%
Yes but I might change my mind (10)
11.49%

Watched Threads

View All