Philosophical Subject of the Moment

Free discussion of anything human or divine ~ Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality

Moderators: Xar, Fist and Faith

User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Your logic is not unpleasant, because it is false. As I've been saying since the beginning, your faith lacks in these things. That's what happens when you begin with conclusions. It's the same here as it is with Lewis' moral compass. You could start from the fact that so many people hold this worldview, and try to understand it. It is likely that you would be unable to, as I am likely unable to feel this or that aspect of Christianity. It is not within my grasp, as this is not within yours. But you could accept that it is the workable worldview that many tell you it is, even as you believe it is not an accurate description of reality.

But here, you see a worldview that you cannot abide. It is not simply a matter of not being as correct as Orthodoxy, as in the case of Catholocism. It is anathema. It must be outright impossible. Starting from this conclusion, that it is not possible to think and feel what you are being told is thought and felt, you develop a flawed chain of thoughts to "prove" it is wrong. But it is not. You simply don't understand it.

I can't figure out Einstein's relativity to save my life, but that doesn't mean it's not an accurate description of the universe. Some people don't have any interest in music, but that doesn't mean Mozart was not capable of the legendary feats he performed. Your mind doesn't cannot grasp what I'm saying about meaninglessness. That's why you recoil from the various aspects of it. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
rusmeister
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3210
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Russia

Post by rusmeister »

Fist and Faith wrote:Your logic is not unpleasant, because it is false. As I've been saying since the beginning, your faith lacks in these things. That's what happens when you begin with conclusions. It's the same here as it is with Lewis' moral compass. You could start from the fact that so many people hold this worldview, and try to understand it. It is likely that you would be unable to, as I am likely unable to feel this or that aspect of Christianity. It is not within my grasp, as this is not within yours. But you could accept that it is the workable worldview that many tell you it is, even as you believe it is not an accurate description of reality.

But here, you see a worldview that you cannot abide. It is not simply a matter of not being as correct as Orthodoxy, as in the case of Catholocism. It is anathema. It must be outright impossible. Starting from this conclusion, that it is not possible to think and feel what you are being told is thought and felt, you develop a flawed chain of thoughts to "prove" it is wrong. But it is not. You simply don't understand it.

I can't figure out Einstein's relativity to save my life, but that doesn't mean it's not an accurate description of the universe. Some people don't have any interest in music, but that doesn't mean Mozart was not capable of the legendary feats he performed. Your mind doesn't cannot grasp what I'm saying about meaninglessness. That's why you recoil from the various aspects of it. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.
OK. I give up. I stand by my position, but think it useless to argue.
Lewis didn't start from a conclusion. He started like any scientist - from an observation - that people in general do behave a certain way; he developed a hypothesis and from there a thesis. That is certainly not starting from a conclusion. But you think it is. So what's the point in arguing?

For me it's not a question of "abiding" a worldview. It's the fact that if one is true, the other CANNOT be true. You don't "abide" evident falsehoods. The logical person rejects them. But you think they can be "abided" when it is evident to me that they cannot. So what's the point in arguing?

My mind completely grasps what you have said about meaninglessness. I see it as short-sighted. But you don't. So what's the use of arguing?
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)

"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

rusmeister wrote:Lewis didn't start from a conclusion. He started like any scientist - from an observation - that people in general do behave a certain way; he developed a hypothesis and from there a thesis. That is certainly not starting from a conclusion. But you think it is. So what's the point in arguing?
No. He ignored the fact that people do not in general behave in a certain way. Though society does its best to force certain behaviors, and punishes transgressions, people behave in many different ways. Many people, every day, everywhere. That's what is observed.

Lewis started from the conclusion that God created us with a moral compass, and explained why we don't follow it. That's working backwards from a conclusion.

rusmeister wrote:For me it's not a question of "abiding" a worldview. It's the fact that if one is true, the other CANNOT be true. You don't "abide" evident falsehoods. The logical person rejects them. But you think they can be "abided" when it is evident to me that they cannot. So what's the point in arguing?
It's one thing to believe, absolutely, that your worldview is right, and mine is wrong. There isn't anything arrogant about that.

It's another to say mine can't exist. A worldview that says "We can all walk through walls as though they are holographic projections" can't exist. Anyone who says that is the case has never tried to walk through a wall. You are saying mine is in that category; that I haven't truly considered my own worldview - the equivalent of trying to walk through walls. Just because you can't see how others can do what we say we've done, you claim it cannot be done. That is arrogant. Claiming to understand a worldview you view from the outside better than those within it is as great an example of arrogance as I can think of.

rusmeister wrote:My mind completely grasps what you have said about meaninglessness. I see it as short-sighted. But you don't. So what's the use of arguing?
Your mind doesn't grasp it. It can't grasp it. It's wired in another direction. You see my worldview as you would see a worldview of beings who are composed of sentient methane. Impossible to be held by beings of our composition. But it is only impossible to be held by those of a particular psychological makeup. It is short-sighted in the sense that our existence is believed to be of lesser duration than in your worldview. It is not short-sighted in the sense of "You haven't considered it through to the end." You don't know anything about considering the end of our existence. You recoil from such thoughts. You can say the words, and read about it, but you cannot feel such thoughts. Not having eternal existence is abnormal, unnatural, something to be feared. How do you think you can truly understand a worldview that says that is what happens??
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
rusmeister
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3210
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Russia

Post by rusmeister »

Fist and Faith wrote:
rusmeister wrote:Lewis didn't start from a conclusion. He started like any scientist - from an observation - that people in general do behave a certain way; he developed a hypothesis and from there a thesis. That is certainly not starting from a conclusion. But you think it is. So what's the point in arguing?
No. He ignored the fact that people do not in general behave in a certain way. Though society does its best to force certain behaviors, and punishes transgressions, people behave in many different ways. Many people, every day, everywhere. That's what is observed.

Lewis started from the conclusion that God created us with a moral compass, and explained why we don't follow it. That's working backwards from a conclusion.

Lewis's observation is different from yours - but he started from his observation. It is obvious to me that you take exceptions and treat them like the rule. YOU ignore the commonality which he deftly explains. But what's the point in arguing if you can't or won't see that?
Fist and Faith wrote:
rusmeister wrote:For me it's not a question of "abiding" a worldview. It's the fact that if one is true, the other CANNOT be true. You don't "abide" evident falsehoods. The logical person rejects them. But you think they can be "abided" when it is evident to me that they cannot. So what's the point in arguing?
It's one thing to believe, absolutely, that your worldview is right, and mine is wrong. There isn't anything arrogant about that.

It's another to say mine can't exist. A worldview that says "We can all walk through walls as though they are holographic projections" can't exist. Anyone who says that is the case has never tried to walk through a wall. You are saying mine is in that category; that I haven't truly considered my own worldview - the equivalent of trying to walk through walls. Just because you can't see how others can do what we say we've done, you claim it cannot be done. That is arrogant. Claiming to understand a worldview you view from the outside better than those within it is as great an example of arrogance as I can think of.
I do not say that your worldview does not exist. I am sure there are a number of sincere people who hold it. I am a little surprised that you have taken what I have said and interpreted THAT out of it, as I am at the interpretation that people 'cannot' possibly think certain things. I completely grant that people DO think such things and you do not need to prove that you do think them. I believe it. I also believe you have a worldview. You don't need to prove that you do indeed have one, and the one that you have. I believe it.

Fist, you ADMITTED that you had never considered the thought of others - that your worldview is something you came up with in your own experience. In terms of philosophical knowledge, it's like a scientist to whom it had never occurred to refer to a scientific tradition - prior obtained knowledge, but literally discovered everything on his own. Only his 'everything' isn't all that much. I'm not saying that as any kind of put down - but when I have made at least SOME reference to that aspect of human experience when you, by your own admission, haven't (by now 'hadn't), you shouldn't be shocked and offended when I reference it and claim to know things about it and have thought about it.
Fist and Faith wrote:
rusmeister wrote:My mind completely grasps what you have said about meaninglessness. I see it as short-sighted. But you don't. So what's the use of arguing?
Your mind doesn't grasp it. It can't grasp it. It's wired in another direction. You see my worldview as you would see a worldview of beings who are composed of sentient methane. Impossible to be held by beings of our composition. But it is only impossible to be held by those of a particular psychological makeup. It is short-sighted in the sense that our existence is believed to be of lesser duration than in your worldview. It is not short-sighted in the sense of "You haven't considered it through to the end." You don't know anything about considering the end of our existence. You recoil from such thoughts. You can say the words, and read about it, but you cannot feel such thoughts. Not having eternal existence is abnormal, unnatural, something to be feared. How do you think you can truly understand a worldview that says that is what happens??
You can make assertions, as we all can. Since I DO grasp materialism, and since that is obviously at the center of your worldview, I DO grasp your worldview, even if there are details that I know nothing about built around that core that I DO know something about. If I blast the core, I blast the worldview, and everything that depends on that core.

Chesterton said that sanity understands insanity; insanity does not understand sanity. (Orthodoxy, a truly great book that it's a pity you haven't read.)The civilized man can understand the barbarian. The barbarian cannot understand the civilized man. ("Mirror, Mirror")
The logical person recognizes illogic - the illogical person cannot recognize good logic. The person who knows truth can recognize falsehood. The person who clings to falsehood cannot recognize truth.

But enough said. I'm not going to continue this. I appreciate all your kind thoughts and wishes for my daughter; she has made a full recovery, so thanks to all!
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)

"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

rusmeister wrote:Lewis's observation is different from yours - but he started from his observation. It is obvious to me that you take exceptions and treat them like the rule. YOU ignore the commonality which he deftly explains. But what's the point in arguing if you can't or won't see that?
When we examine things like the newspapers and police reports, and we simply hear what people are saying around us, either we find that many people, every day, everywhere, steal, kill, rape, and cheat, or we do not. And we do. Not exceptions. Not a small percentage. Just those we know about are a huge number. It's how humans are. It's impossible for a society to endure if everyone has a free hand to do such things, so society does its best to stop us. But it can't change human nature. We keep doing it.

rusmeister wrote:I do not say that your worldview does not exist. I am sure there are a number of sincere people who hold it. I am a little surprised that you have taken what I have said and interpreted THAT out of it, as I am at the interpretation that people 'cannot' possibly think certain things. I completely grant that people DO think such things and you do not need to prove that you do think them. I believe it. I also believe you have a worldview. You don't need to prove that you do indeed have one, and the one that you have. I believe it.
You believe it is impossible for me to hold my worldview if I think it through to the end. If I do that, I will not be able to avoid a contradiction that forces me to abandon the worldview. Just as I would be unable to hold onto a worldview that says I can walk through walls if I actually tried to. Therefore, I haven't thought it through to the end. I'm avoiding it (intentionally or not).

rusmeister wrote:Fist, you ADMITTED that you had never considered the thought of others - that your worldview is something you came up with in your own experience. In terms of philosophical knowledge, it's like a scientist to whom it had never occurred to refer to a scientific tradition - prior obtained knowledge, but literally discovered everything on his own. Only his 'everything' isn't all that much. I'm not saying that as any kind of put down - but when I have made at least SOME reference to that aspect of human experience when you, by your own admission, haven't (by now 'hadn't), you shouldn't be shocked and offended when I reference it and claim to know things about it and have thought about it.
Someone who has never seen a wheel, and invents it again, will still have invented the wheel. A perfectly good invention.

rusmeister wrote:You can make assertions, as we all can. Since I DO grasp materialism, and since that is obviously at the center of your worldview, I DO grasp your worldview, even if there are details that I know nothing about built around that core that I DO know something about. If I blast the core, I blast the worldview, and everything that depends on that core.
You DON'T understand it. Not beyond the point where is repelled you. Someone can hear the Beatles' "Please Please Me", "Love Me Do", and "Can't Buy Me Love", and not be all that interested in them. He might not bother listening to any more Beatles. It's certainly possible that, if he did hear all of the Beatles' songs, he wouldn't like them anyway. He might prefer the Rolling Stones. Or Motley Crue. That's the way it works. But it would be wrong for him to assume he knows the Beatles all that well. Their sound changed considerably. Those of us who know the Beatles fully know that he's speaking from ignorance when he says he knows them from those three early songs.

It's the same with your understanding of my worldview. To those of us who are within this worldview, who have gotten past the initial observations, it is clear from things like this:
Well, Cambo, I think I've already said what I think of a person who believes in oblivion, that they speak of 'now' as if 'now' was all there was, not seeing that it ultimately means complete and utter meaninglessness even of the 'now'. A complete self-contradiction, escaped only by thinking only about what one 'can enjoy "now"' - by ignoring that 'now' must end and cease to be.
that you don't understand. You can claim you do, but you clearly do not. My 8 yo could claim to understand income taxes, but, if she tried to talk about it, it would be clear that she does not. You hit a concept that you cannot resolve, and can go no further. But the concept is not the contradiction that you see it to be. It's merely your perception of it.

rusmeister wrote:Chesterton said that sanity understands insanity; insanity does not understand sanity. (Orthodoxy, a truly great book that it's a pity you haven't read.)The civilized man can understand the barbarian. The barbarian cannot understand the civilized man. ("Mirror, Mirror")
The logical person recognizes illogic - the illogical person cannot recognize good logic. The person who knows truth can recognize falsehood. The person who clings to falsehood cannot recognize truth.
Yeah, I was gonna say, "Spock said it, too." :lol: Of course, I put us in the opposite roles that you put us in.

rusmeister wrote:But enough said. I'm not going to continue this. I appreciate all your kind thoughts and wishes for my daughter; she has made a full recovery, so thanks to all!
I've been there, too. There's no more horrifying position people can find themselves in. I'm extremely happy for both of you!


P.S. What's the point in arguing if we agree?? :lol:
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
rusmeister
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3210
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Russia

Post by rusmeister »

Thinking what, if anything, I should reply to. We've already covered most of this ground.
Fist and Faith wrote:
rusmeister wrote:Lewis's observation is different from yours - but he started from his observation. It is obvious to me that you take exceptions and treat them like the rule. YOU ignore the commonality which he deftly explains. But what's the point in arguing if you can't or won't see that?
When we examine things like the newspapers and police reports, and we simply hear what people are saying around us, either we find that many people, every day, everywhere, steal, kill, rape, and cheat, or we do not. And we do. Not exceptions. Not a small percentage. Just those we know about are a huge number. It's how humans are. It's impossible for a society to endure if everyone has a free hand to do such things, so society does its best to stop us. But it can't change human nature. We keep doing it.
More for the audience, since I've answered this in the past...
You are right, of course, that people do those things. But Lewis acknowledged, as I do, that people do evil. What his point was is that nearly all of us know that wrong is wrong, on one level or another, even though we do it. Of that huge number, most do not think that they are doing good and virtuous things which everybody would be proud of when they steal, kill, rape and cheat. It is the fact that they do not, but seek to justify their acts anyway, that is the curious thing, something they would not need to do if they could take it for granted as good and moral behavior that everyone will naturally be proud of.

I said "most" because of course, there are exceptions to the rule - such things as invalids and blind people - only my own hypothesis is that no one starts out that way - but that their moral sense may be beaten out of them by public behavior in their environment. (Thus, Nazis, children fighters and killers in Africa, etc.)
J.R.R. Tolkien wrote:For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so.
But in any event, the fact that people DO behave the way Lewis describes, even when stealing, etc. remains. When caught, they attempt to justify and excuse themselves. They give REASONS why they behaved that way. They do NOT take their behavior as deserving moral approbation without justification.

I do appreciate it when your good humor comes out, btw. :wry grin:
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)

"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Of course they give reasons. They're trying to stay out of jail. Or, in the case of lesser offenses, they don't want to be mistrusted in the future. It's damage control. They want to do what they want to do, and they don't care if others are harmed (physically; emotionally; by loss of property; etc). That's why they do it again. And again and again and again... If they thought it was wrong, and wished they hadn't done it, they'd stop. But they're just paying lip-service. They don't think it's wrong. That's why they do it repeatedly. It's the morality of "What I want overrides all other considerations."

But, really, this is just a side argument. The point I'm trying to make is that you cannot understand my worldview. Another anology that might help is to think of it like PTC paper. Some think it tastes intensely bitter. Others can't taste it at all. You look at my worldview, and you see a wall. I see doors. I know, not a great analogy, but it's an attempt. It's why you do not think it's possible to think my worldview through to the end and not find it self-contradictory. It's not self-contradictory to those who can see the doors, just as PTC paper is not tasteless to those who can taste it.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
rusmeister
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3210
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Russia

Post by rusmeister »

Fist and Faith wrote:Of course they give reasons. They're trying to stay out of jail. Or, in the case of lesser offenses, they don't want to be mistrusted in the future. It's damage control. They want to do what they want to do, and they don't care if others are harmed (physically; emotionally; by loss of property; etc). That's why they do it again. And again and again and again... If they thought it was wrong, and wished they hadn't done it, they'd stop. But they're just paying lip-service. They don't think it's wrong. That's why they do it repeatedly. It's the morality of "What I want overrides all other considerations."

But, really, this is just a side argument. The point I'm trying to make is that you cannot understand my worldview. Another anology that might help is to think of it like PTC paper. Some think it tastes intensely bitter. Others can't taste it at all. You look at my worldview, and you see a wall. I see doors. I know, not a great analogy, but it's an attempt. It's why you do not think it's possible to think my worldview through to the end and not find it self-contradictory. It's not self-contradictory to those who can see the doors, just as PTC paper is not tasteless to those who can taste it.
Why do you think that people who do wrong do not think it wrong to do? Where do you get this strange idea? Their behavior completely contradicts this idea. Is it impossible for them to think it wrong and do it anyway?

Why do they think other people would want to put them in jail or mistrust them? There is no moral compass, so surely what they do is praiseworthy and admirable? Why do they feel a need to justify anything? Which leads to "Why do all societies develop laws punishing such behavior?" Why do they all agree that these things are morally reprehensible and not praiseworthy? How is it that Hammurabi developed a code that we recognize IS a step in the right direction; that does lead to order and prevent chaos; that it IS right to condemn certain behaviors? How could we agree with him, or Moses, etc, except by sheer chance - unless there really were a "moral north", a common truth that enables us to agree regardless of the space, time, cultures and languages that separate us?

As to understanding your worldview...
I've said it a dozen times. I understand materialism. Your worldview is heavily founded on materialism. To that extent I understand your worldview. It is enough to show me that it cannot be right, whatever else I do not personally know about you. I don't need to know the experiences of your life to know that materialism is false.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)

"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

No, you don't need to know the experiences of my life. They won't make you able to taste the bitterness of PTC paper. Nothing will make you able to do that. It is something you cannot experience. That's all I'm trying to say. It is possible for you to be unable to see something. We all have our blindspots. Even you. This is one of them. Your words to Cambo demonstrate this. I compared it to eating cake. You are saying there's no reason to eat cake, because, once it's gone, it's as though it never was. Nobody and nothing remembers the cake I ate when I was alone at the diner last year, and, once I'm dead, even I won't remember it. So why bother eating cake? Why plan eating more in the future?
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
rusmeister
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3210
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Russia

Post by rusmeister »

Fist and Faith wrote:No, you don't need to know the experiences of my life. They won't make you able to taste the bitterness of PTC paper. Nothing will make you able to do that. It is something you cannot experience. That's all I'm trying to say. It is possible for you to be unable to see something. We all have our blindspots. Even you. This is one of them. Your words to Cambo demonstrate this. I compared it to eating cake. You are saying there's no reason to eat cake, because, once it's gone, it's as though it never was. Nobody and nothing remembers the cake I ate when I was alone at the diner last year, and, once I'm dead, even I won't remember it. So why bother eating cake? Why plan eating more in the future?
I quite agree on the many things I do not know about you. I shout my agnosticism about your life from the rooftops! :)

That doesn't change the fact that materialism is false, and I can understand THAT, and that everything that you build or defend from a materialistic base is false. I don't need to know about your experience at McDonald's when you were 19 in order to understand that. I can be ignorant of many other things and still know that. The fact that I am not omniscient does not mean that I therefore cannot know something to be false.

The trouble with your analogy, is, of course, that you yourself are not even around to remember the very taste of cake. The elimination of yourself, the complete end of you negates all analogies that try to smuggle you back into the picture. If you yourself are the cake, then you are not also the person who eats it, who at least is still around and remembers the pleasure and retains the experience. The end of you means that you do not even retain the experience, the memory.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)

"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Again, it has nothing to do with me or my experiences. It's a basic understanding of my worldview you don't grasp. If you did, you wouldn't say things like what you said to Cambo. You are unable to see how the moment can have meaning in the moment, and even for the rest of my life, even if it does not have eternal meaning. It is a contradiction to one of your psyche; but not in the objective sense, like the speed of sound, or 2+2=4. You do not understand this, because of your psyche. That's fine. We all have our own strengths and weaknesses. But it's foolish, or arrogant, or something, to imagine yourself to be infallible, and unable to consider the possibility that people can see meaning that you cannot.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Cambo
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2022
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:53 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by Cambo »

Speaking of which, I'd really like an answer to my question. Let's see if I can put in in a philosophical form.

Your argument about the importance of objective truth currently looks like this:

P1) Cambo believes in a panentheistic Greater Self, rather than a monotheistic God.
P2) Cambo is wrong in this belief
P3) I am right in my Orthodox beliefs
P4) It matters very much to me that I am right and Cambo is wrong
P5) It matters just as much to Cambo that he is right and I am wrong

C) The objective truth of metaphysics matters to everyone

Now, I say P5 is false. Yet your conclusion relies on both P4 and P5 being true. Seems to me that in order for that to make any kind of sense, you'd need a couple more premises in between P4 and P5. Would you be so kind as to fill in the gaps for me?

Alternatively, if you feel this train of logic misrepresents you (although it's the only one you've presented me with), feel free to answer in any format. Just tell me why you think it's so important to me that you hold different theological beliefs than I do. I'm curious to learn this about myself :P .
^"Amusing, worth talking to, completely insane...pick your favourite." - Avatar

https://variousglimpses.wordpress.com
User avatar
rusmeister
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3210
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Russia

Post by rusmeister »

Cambo wrote:Speaking of which, I'd really like an answer to my question. Let's see if I can put in in a philosophical form.

Your argument about the importance of objective truth currently looks like this:

P1) Cambo believes in a panentheistic Greater Self, rather than a monotheistic God.
P2) Cambo is wrong in this belief
P3) I am right in my Orthodox beliefs
P4) It matters very much to me that I am right and Cambo is wrong
P5) It matters just as much to Cambo that he is right and I am wrong

C) The objective truth of metaphysics matters to everyone

Now, I say P5 is false. Yet your conclusion relies on both P4 and P5 being true. Seems to me that in order for that to make any kind of sense, you'd need a couple more premises in between P4 and P5. Would you be so kind as to fill in the gaps for me?

Alternatively, if you feel this train of logic misrepresents you (although it's the only one you've presented me with), feel free to answer in any format. Just tell me why you think it's so important to me that you hold different theological beliefs than I do. I'm curious to learn this about myself :P .
Hi Cambo!
(I only have a minute or two)
I do feel it misrepresents what I think. I DON'T feel that the truth matters to everyone. Some people really don't care. But I do think that the one thing that people really rise up against is my Faith when they get that it says it really IS the truth. As long as we play along and say, "This is 'just' what we believe" (ie, this is our 'opinion'), no one has any problem with it. It's on all fours with everyone else's opinions/beliefs (as "belief" is generally understood today). But when this says, this really IS, no kidding, the implication that what others believe is wrong/not true/not consistent with reality gets up a lot of people's hackles. It's bound to. It brings back the ancient philosophical question of whether a thing is TRUE or not. (I think that people before the modern era were, as GKC put it, "frightfully alive" by comparison to our relative indifference to the truth.)
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)

"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

You misunderstand, rus. I think I know the truth just as surely as you think you know the truth. The difference is, you think we're supposed to take you more seriously than you take us, and even more seriously than we take ourselves. We're supposed to put your faith above the rest. "Yeah, each of us thinks we're right. But, let's face it, we all know that rus really is right." Since you have nothing to back up your assertions, it's silly. If I come out of my house one morning and find a tree branch on my car, and a jagged stump of a branch in the tree directly above my car, I'm going to assume the roof of my car was dented by a tree branch falling on it. You can say, "No, it was dented by ___. It really IS what happened, no kidding." And you think I'm wrong for not just taking your word for it, and ignoring the evidence.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Cambo
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2022
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:53 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by Cambo »

rusmeister wrote:
Cambo wrote:Speaking of which, I'd really like an answer to my question. Let's see if I can put in in a philosophical form.

Your argument about the importance of objective truth currently looks like this:

P1) Cambo believes in a panentheistic Greater Self, rather than a monotheistic God.
P2) Cambo is wrong in this belief
P3) I am right in my Orthodox beliefs
P4) It matters very much to me that I am right and Cambo is wrong
P5) It matters just as much to Cambo that he is right and I am wrong

C) The objective truth of metaphysics matters to everyone

Now, I say P5 is false. Yet your conclusion relies on both P4 and P5 being true. Seems to me that in order for that to make any kind of sense, you'd need a couple more premises in between P4 and P5. Would you be so kind as to fill in the gaps for me?

Alternatively, if you feel this train of logic misrepresents you (although it's the only one you've presented me with), feel free to answer in any format. Just tell me why you think it's so important to me that you hold different theological beliefs than I do. I'm curious to learn this about myself :P .
Hi Cambo!
(I only have a minute or two)
I do feel it misrepresents what I think. I DON'T feel that the truth matters to everyone. Some people really don't care. But I do think that the one thing that people really rise up against is my Faith when they get that it says it really IS the truth. As long as we play along and say, "This is 'just' what we believe" (ie, this is our 'opinion'), no one has any problem with it. It's on all fours with everyone else's opinions/beliefs (as "belief" is generally understood today). But when this says, this really IS, no kidding, the implication that what others believe is wrong/not true/not consistent with reality gets up a lot of people's hackles. It's bound to. It brings back the ancient philosophical question of whether a thing is TRUE or not. (I think that people before the modern era were, as GKC put it, "frightfully alive" by comparison to our relative indifference to the truth.)
Meh. I'm aware you think I'm wrong, and I don't really mind. I think you are wrong about a lot of things, too. That doesn't make me indifferent to truth. It's just that what I believe to be the truth gives me no reason to get upset if you beleive something different.
^"Amusing, worth talking to, completely insane...pick your favourite." - Avatar

https://variousglimpses.wordpress.com
User avatar
rusmeister
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3210
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Russia

Post by rusmeister »

Fist and Faith wrote:You misunderstand, rus. I think I know the truth just as surely as you think you know the truth. The difference is, you think we're supposed to take you more seriously than you take us, and even more seriously than we take ourselves. We're supposed to put your faith above the rest. "Yeah, each of us thinks we're right. But, let's face it, we all know that rus really is right." Since you have nothing to back up your assertions, it's silly. If I come out of my house one morning and find a tree branch on my car, and a jagged stump of a branch in the tree directly above my car, I'm going to assume the roof of my car was dented by a tree branch falling on it. You can say, "No, it was dented by ___. It really IS what happened, no kidding." And you think I'm wrong for not just taking your word for it, and ignoring the evidence.
I think this a misrepresentation. I expect that as long as you think you are right, you will not think me right. I can only hope to show where exceptions are presented as rules, and where the idea that people who do wrong do NOT think that they do wrong is an error. If you consistently deny that, then that's the end of the conversation. I may be able to demonstrate it to nearly everybody else, to whom it is obvious that wrong-doers do generally justify themselves in one way or another even when there is no immediate threat of punishment, and it is what we see in the expressions used all the time "I was here first", and so on, but I won't trouble to try to convince you when you don't see it.
Last edited by rusmeister on Wed Apr 06, 2011 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)

"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
rusmeister
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3210
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Russia

Post by rusmeister »

Cambo wrote:
rusmeister wrote:
Cambo wrote:Speaking of which, I'd really like an answer to my question. Let's see if I can put in in a philosophical form.

Your argument about the importance of objective truth currently looks like this:

P1) Cambo believes in a panentheistic Greater Self, rather than a monotheistic God.
P2) Cambo is wrong in this belief
P3) I am right in my Orthodox beliefs
P4) It matters very much to me that I am right and Cambo is wrong
P5) It matters just as much to Cambo that he is right and I am wrong

C) The objective truth of metaphysics matters to everyone

Now, I say P5 is false. Yet your conclusion relies on both P4 and P5 being true. Seems to me that in order for that to make any kind of sense, you'd need a couple more premises in between P4 and P5. Would you be so kind as to fill in the gaps for me?

Alternatively, if you feel this train of logic misrepresents you (although it's the only one you've presented me with), feel free to answer in any format. Just tell me why you think it's so important to me that you hold different theological beliefs than I do. I'm curious to learn this about myself :P .
Hi Cambo!
(I only have a minute or two)
I do feel it misrepresents what I think. I DON'T feel that the truth matters to everyone. Some people really don't care. But I do think that the one thing that people really rise up against is my Faith when they get that it says it really IS the truth. As long as we play along and say, "This is 'just' what we believe" (ie, this is our 'opinion'), no one has any problem with it. It's on all fours with everyone else's opinions/beliefs (as "belief" is generally understood today). But when this says, this really IS, no kidding, the implication that what others believe is wrong/not true/not consistent with reality gets up a lot of people's hackles. It's bound to. It brings back the ancient philosophical question of whether a thing is TRUE or not. (I think that people before the modern era were, as GKC put it, "frightfully alive" by comparison to our relative indifference to the truth.)
Meh. I'm aware you think I'm wrong, and I don't really mind. I think you are wrong about a lot of things, too. That doesn't make me indifferent to truth. It's just that what I believe to be the truth gives me no reason to get upset if you beleive something different.
Well I think "upset" is the wrong word, certainly if applied to me. Saddened is much closer. Because I think that the sadness and wickedness of the world is greatly multiplied by false belief, and that the greatest thing that works against evil is for a person to realize his or her true state, that I am what is wrong with the world. Therefore these things matter very much.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)

"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

rusmeister wrote:
Fist and Faith wrote:You misunderstand, rus. I think I know the truth just as surely as you think you know the truth. The difference is, you think we're supposed to take you more seriously than you take us, and even more seriously than we take ourselves. We're supposed to put your faith above the rest. "Yeah, each of us thinks we're right. But, let's face it, we all know that rus really is right." Since you have nothing to back up your assertions, it's silly. If I come out of my house one morning and find a tree branch on my car, and a jagged stump of a branch in the tree directly above my car, I'm going to assume the roof of my car was dented by a tree branch falling on it. You can say, "No, it was dented by ___. It really IS what happened, no kidding." And you think I'm wrong for not just taking your word for it, and ignoring the evidence.
I think this a misrepresentation. I expect that as long as you think you are right, you will not think me right. I can only hope to show where exceptions are presented as rules, and where the idea that people who do wrong do NOT think that they do wrong is an error. If you consistently deny that, then that's the end of the conversation. I may be able to demonstrate it to nearly everybody else, to whom it is obvious that wrong-doers do generally justify themselves in one way or another even when there is no immediate threat of punishment, and it is what we see in the expressions used all the time "I was here first", and so on, but I won't trouble to try to convince you when you don't see it.
I don't mean the moral compass issue. I mean your worldview in general.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Cambo
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2022
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:53 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by Cambo »

rusmeister wrote:
Cambo wrote:
rusmeister wrote: Hi Cambo!
(I only have a minute or two)
I do feel it misrepresents what I think. I DON'T feel that the truth matters to everyone. Some people really don't care. But I do think that the one thing that people really rise up against is my Faith when they get that it says it really IS the truth. As long as we play along and say, "This is 'just' what we believe" (ie, this is our 'opinion'), no one has any problem with it. It's on all fours with everyone else's opinions/beliefs (as "belief" is generally understood today). But when this says, this really IS, no kidding, the implication that what others believe is wrong/not true/not consistent with reality gets up a lot of people's hackles. It's bound to. It brings back the ancient philosophical question of whether a thing is TRUE or not. (I think that people before the modern era were, as GKC put it, "frightfully alive" by comparison to our relative indifference to the truth.)
Meh. I'm aware you think I'm wrong, and I don't really mind. I think you are wrong about a lot of things, too. That doesn't make me indifferent to truth. It's just that what I believe to be the truth gives me no reason to get upset if you beleive something different.
Well I think "upset" is the wrong word, certainly if applied to me. Saddened is much closer. Because I think that the sadness and wickedness of the world is greatly multiplied by false belief, and that the greatest thing that works against evil is for a person to realize his or her true state, that I am what is wrong with the world. Therefore these things matter very much.
I was speaking of my reaction to your beliefs. I'm just trying to make the point that your errors in my sight don't particularly affect me. I'm certainly not saddened that you have found Orthodoxy is the faith for you. If anything, I'm happy for you :D . Even if our differences do occasioanlly bring us into conflict. Because under my beliefs, it simply makes no difference that you are wrong. You'll end up in the same place as me anyway.
^"Amusing, worth talking to, completely insane...pick your favourite." - Avatar

https://variousglimpses.wordpress.com
User avatar
rusmeister
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3210
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Russia

Post by rusmeister »

Cambo wrote:
rusmeister wrote:
Cambo wrote: Meh. I'm aware you think I'm wrong, and I don't really mind. I think you are wrong about a lot of things, too. That doesn't make me indifferent to truth. It's just that what I believe to be the truth gives me no reason to get upset if you beleive something different.
Well I think "upset" is the wrong word, certainly if applied to me. Saddened is much closer. Because I think that the sadness and wickedness of the world is greatly multiplied by false belief, and that the greatest thing that works against evil is for a person to realize his or her true state, that I am what is wrong with the world. Therefore these things matter very much.
I was speaking of my reaction to your beliefs. I'm just trying to make the point that your errors in my sight don't particularly affect me. I'm certainly not saddened that you have found Orthodoxy is the faith for you. If anything, I'm happy for you :D . Even if our differences do occasioanlly bring us into conflict. Because under my beliefs, it simply makes no difference that you are wrong. You'll end up in the same place as me anyway.
I understand this. I merely say that that happens to not be the case, but that reality is actually as I describe.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)

"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
Post Reply

Return to “The Close”