RE: Random Thoughts
October 5, 2021 at 1:25 pm
(This post was last modified: October 5, 2021 at 1:48 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(October 4, 2021 at 4:16 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: I don't believe that truth can be arrived at using the Socratic method. It may be useful for exposing obvious B.S., but it doesn't actually lead to truth. Objective truth is hard-won through evidence and experiment.
As for discussions around frameworks for morality and other social constructs, those are best discussed in terms of values. i.e. given the premise of Societal Value X, does Social Construct Y conform to it? Then, we can determine on what basis we decided on Societal Value X. These are nothing but opinions, but they reveal something about ourselves as human beings. Our common humanity is the only thing that allows us to have any agreement on these, not any objective philosophy.
I don't see formal debates as being that useful. I usually give my opinion, and see if anyone can shoot it down (and see if someone comes up with a good idea I haven't thought of). I'm not going to debate endlessly as if there is the possibility of "winning the internet"
Are there IHO objective facts about humanity that warrant normative judgements? For example, a poor diet can lead to disease. Is it therfore valid to say that objectively it is better for your body to have a healthy diet and therefore you should strive for a healthy diet, all other things being equal?
(October 4, 2021 at 3:06 pm)emjay Wrote:(October 4, 2021 at 1:49 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Well, I suppose I could argue on behalf of atheism :-) againt pantheism.
Anyway, one of my main motivations for that debate was to present the 5W in an organized and nuanced way. IMO detractors of the 5W tend to dismiss them based on misunderstandings about classical notions of causality.
Well FWIW, I for one would love to see you redo that debate, since it never really got off the ground, to put it charitably, the first time round. I understand what you mean about it being nuanced and open to misunderstandings, and that's why I would love to see it clarified and then argued on it's own terms. For instance I'm reading at the moment about 'essentially ordered series' and the concept is pretty complicated, but I understand that it's necessary to understand that, and similar concepts, before I can even hope to truly understand what Aquinas is actually arguing in the five ways. For instance, I've watched quite a few videos on YouTube about it and I have to say, the ones claiming to debunk it, have been disappointing thus far; even in my limited understanding I can see terms - like 'necessary' for instance - getting conflated and used in multiple ways left, right, and centre. So basically I would just like to see a good, honest, and thorough logical debate on it, one with clearly defined terms that help avoid equivocation or misunderstandings.
I agree that debate, if it was one, was a disaster. I too was dissapointed. And I agree that many debunkers do a poor job...almost as bad as many defenders. That said, I am an amateur at philosophy so maybe I am way of base with my interpretation too (despite the tone of certainty in debate). If my interpretation of the Aquinas is off, I would certainly like to know.
<insert profound quote here>