Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[The Grand Nudger]

Q: Do you think it is possible to have conscious "awareness" of something without conceptualising it from a rationalist perspective? I predict that your answer will be "no". By this, I mean the kind of state at which one arrives during transcendental meditation.

-I wouldn't know. I'd say that to me it would seem to be exceedingly difficult (but the difficulty becomes even more pronounced when we try to have a conversation about it, or assign any measure of veracity or accuracy to the "event" doesn't it). What kind of state does one arrive at during TM - I personally arrive at "sleep" in any attempt at meditation.

I could rephrase the second bit but I doubt it would help. I've been asking you to make a case for whatever supplements you prefer rather than constantly droning on about the limits of reason since the beginning. It's been fruitless. Let me try one of my favorite lines. Reason is not only limited in scope, but it's trash, absolute garbage-theres no sense in hammering in on it's limits because it's been removed from consideration, now tell me how I -ought- to be doing this, make that case.

[Love]

I could rephrase the second bit but I doubt it would help. I've been asking you to make a case for whatever supplements you prefer rather than constantly droning on about the limits of reason since the beginning. It's been fruitless. Let me try one of my favorite lines. Reason is not only limited in scope, but it's trash, absolute garbage-theres no sense in hammering in on it's limits because it's been removed from consideration, now tell me how I -ought- to be doing this, make that case.

Right, well I have not been "droning on"; instead of wasting your time making disparaging remarks, concetrate on the point you are trying to make. I have been addressing questions and would mention the "limits of reason" if it was relevant to the point that I was endeavouring to make. If you could have articulated your point more clearly, I could have addressed this earlier.

It is absolutely impossible to communicate any proposition via the use of textual language without reason. Reason dominates all forms of communication between humans beings, regardless of the communication medium that is being utilised to express any particular concept. Therefore, the conditions upon on which you insisted are ridiculous.

[The Grand Nudger]

If those conditions are ridiculous even in the communication of what we might call knowledge or truth, how are they supposed to help us obtain either?
(I won't begrudge you using a little reason to get to the supplemental point - I knew you had to- I just want you to get there faster -by removing reason you are left with nothing to prattle on about-. In short, I'm tired of foreplay and I want the money-shot)

[Love]

If those conditions are ridiculous even in the communication of what we might call knowledge or truth, how are they supposed to help us obtain either?

To reiterate, it is impossible to communicate a concept without reason. Not once in this thread have I stated that we should discard reason altogether; that would be absurd. I have obviously used reason in every single reply. I have been driving the point that, wait for it, "reason has limits", and requires supplementation in many areas. Below is one prime example.

(I won't begrudge you using a little reason to get to the supplemental point - I knew you had to- I just want you to get there faster -by removing reason you are left with nothing to prattle on about-. In short, I'm tired of foreplay and I want the money-shot)

Supplementing rationalism with relativism. I have copied the following passage from post #130 to save time: "For example, if you and I had an interesting rational and logical conversation about a particular topic (and both you and I had an opinion about what we hold as true), how can you prove that your subjective opinion is actually true? Therefore, in this type of situation relativism trumps rationalsm and empiricism for the opinion held by the individual. I also find this with scientific evidence. If two people are viewing the same peer reviewed scientific document that presents evidence to disprove a theory, each person could be interpreting the evidence completely differently from each other. I think these are good examples that show the limits of reason."

Relativism posits that opinions or points of view have no absolute truth; that is, what might be true for you, is not necessarily true for me. Once again, what you hold as true for any particular concept is not going to be true for everybody else. Therefore, even if you have used impeccable reasoned argument to come to a conclusion, relativism still trumps reason in this instance.

[The Grand Nudger]

To reiterate, it is impossible to communicate a concept without reason. Not once in this thread have I stated that we should discard reason altogether; that would be absurd. I have obviously used reason in every single reply. I have been driving the point that, wait for it, "reason has limits", and requires supplementation in many areas. Below is one prime example.

Does it (require supplementation), to what end?

Supplementing rationalism with relativism. I have copied the following passage from post #130 to save time: "For example, if you and I had an interesting rational and logical conversation about a particular topic (and both you and I had an opinion about what we hold as true), how can you prove that your subjective opinion is actually true?

Not all opinions require "truth". For example, if I say chocolate and you say vanilla, both are true, both are subjective, and no supplementing of reason need be applied. We can both, likely, give reasons that we like vanilla or chocolate respectively - meanwhile, no amount of supplemenatation of anything will ever establish chocolate or vanilla as "better" in any true sense between us- because it is not really an area where we should expect, demand, or desire such "truth".

Therefore, in this type of situation relativism trumps rationalsm and empiricism for the opinion held by the individual.

Hardly, I may be willing to concede that you claim to prefer something - but I could run some experiments to see if your claim of experience matches up with demonstrable results. IOW, I could doubt the accuracy of your own perception of your own experiences.
(amusingly we've found that it is often the case that our own perceptions of our experience do not match up to the reality of our experience - insofar as it can be tested)

I also find this with scientific evidence. If two people are viewing the same peer reviewed scientific document that presents evidence to disprove a theory, each person could be interpreting the evidence completely differently from each other. I think these are good examples that show the limits of reason."

I've already responded to this bit, I've nothing to add.

Relativism posits that opinions or points of view have no absolute truth; that is, what might be true for you, is not necessarily true for me. Once again, what you hold as true for any particular concept is not going to be true for everybody else. Therefore, even if you have you used impeccable reasoned argument to come to a conclusion, relativism still trumps reason in this instance.

Trumps reason -for what- Love? It certainly doesn't trump reason if the aim is to increase knowledge. I'd concede that it certainly trumps reason for ending conversations. If you wanted to talk about why something was "true to you" you'd probably start in on reason again, wouldn't you?

[Love]

Does it (require supplementation), to what end?

You might be interested to know that it is empircism that is absolutely fundamental to the scientific method, not rationalism. Pure reason alone is useless in science, primarily because repeatable experiments are required to test hypotheses and predictions (in order to disprove a theory). Another good example is "empathy". I believe that the subjective experience of empathy is entirely beyond the scope of reason. Rationalism can be used to theoretically reflect the concept of empathy, but more sense can be made of empathy if one supplements pure reason with Husserl's phenomenology, for example.

Not all opinions require "truth". For example, if I say chocolate and you say vanilla, both are true, both are subjective, and no supplementing of reason need be applied.

You could have used a better example than something that is so obviously subjective and trivial. There are some intense topics, in which people do hold vehement "black and white" viewpoints that they hold as true or right. Examples: "abortion is wrong" or "Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the only correct interpretation". These black and white opinions do obviously exist, and feel very true to the eye of the beholder.

[The Grand Nudger]

You might be interested to know that it is empircism that is absolutely fundamental to the scientific method, not rationalism. Pure reason alone is useless in science, primarily because repeatable experiments are required to test hypotheses and predictions (in order to disprove a theory).

Of course. I'd say "pure reason" is useless anywhere, personally, but that doesn't address the specifics of what we might use to supplement it (and evidence that flies against the face of reason is looked at pretty suspiciously)

Another good example is "empathy". I believe that the subjective experience of empathy is entirely beyond the scope of reason.

Except that it isn't, you'll need more than "beliefs" to float this one.

Rationalism can be used to theoretically reflect the concept of empathy, but more sense can be made of empathy if one supplements pure reason with Husserl's phenomenology, for example.

Care to elaborate upon why you believe this to be the case?

You could have used a better example than something that is so obviously subjective and trivial. There are some intense topics, in which people do hold vehement "black and white" viewpoints that they hold as true or right. Examples: "abortion is wrong" or "Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the only correct interpretation". These black and white opinions do obviously exist, and feel very true to the eye of the beholder.

Is it obviously subjective and trivial, explain yourself - I now claim that vanilla is objectively better than chocolate and the disagreement is of the utmost importance..... both propositions -"feel very true" to me.

Now back to reality- whether any given interpretation of the evidence "feels very true" to the observer is irrelevant - as I have already explained posts ago. Unless thats all you're going for "feels very true" -without a hope in hell of establishing "is very true".

[Love]

Rhythm, with all due respect, I think that you are selectively ignoring my responses. You keep harping on about providing examples of supplementation to pure reason. I've provided valid examples that I am sure most philosophers would verify are valid. The best example I have provided is the scientific method; this enterprise REQUIRES empiricism along with rationalism (pure reason), and you have completely ignored this. You want me to provide you with answers to all areas that require supplemention; go and research for yourself.

I get the impression that you're being obstinate for the sake of argument. You could at least attempt to engage in the debate instead of replying with flippant and brief responses, which basically results in me repeating myself over topics that have already been covered.

[The Grand Nudger]

Rhythm, with all due respect, I think that you are selectively ignoring my responses. You keep harping on about providing examples of supplementation to pure reason. I've provided valid examples that I am sure most philosophers would verify are valid. The best example I have provided is the scientific method; this enterprise REQUIRES empiricism along with rationalism (pure reason), and you have completely ignored this. You want me to provide you with answers to all areas that require supplemention; go and research for yourself.

I get the impression that you're being obstinate for the sake of argument. You could at least attempt to engage in the debate instead of replying with flippant and brief responses, which basically results in me repeating myself over topics that have already been covered.

I haven't ignored you, I've simply reminded you that reason cannot be removed from that example. I don't have any problem with empiricism either, I find the two work wonderfully together. Would you lean on empiricism as somehow justifying theism?
(you're repeating yourself after I've explained why what you wrote is unsatisfying to me, so I hardly see what room there would be to bitch about repeating yourself. You could have offered something else)

[Angrboda]

Relativism posits that opinions or points of view have no absolute truth; that is, what might be true for you, is not necessarily true for me. Once again, what you hold as true for any particular concept is not going to be true for everybody else. Therefore, even if you have used impeccable reasoned argument to come to a conclusion, relativism still trumps reason in this instance.

Is relativism a relative truth, an absolute truth, or not a truth at all?