Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-10-2018 5:30 AM
192 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 188 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,739 Year: 18,562/29,783 Month: 507/2,043 Week: 59/386 Day: 9/50 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Philosophy of Ideas
Phat
Member
Posts: 11563
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1 of 44 (305177)
04-19-2006 9:03 AM


I have been nosing around in my favorite spots...namely the Dictionary and the Encyclopedia...and have been impressed by some of the philosophical thought concepts that arose during the Enlightenment and sortly before that era.

Seeing as how we at EvC are constantly discussing ideas pertaining to our Faith and Belief, I wanted this thread to focus on the various philosophies of ideas and how they developed.

This is what I studied so far, and anyone can add to the list by introducing another philosophy and how it pertains to the modern thinking which the individual chooses to employ.

Concise Encyclopedia CD writes:


Scholasticism--movement, beginning in the 11th century, that sought to integrate the secular understanding of the ancient world, as exemplified by Aristotle, with the dogma implicit in the revelations of Christianity.

Modern philosophers influenced by Scholasticism include Jacques Maritain and Étienne Gilson (1884–1978).

a-priori-In epistemology, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori (or empirical) knowledge, which derives from experience.

The terms have their origins in the medieval Scholastic debate over Aristotelian concepts (see Scholasticism). Immanuel Kant initiated their current usage, pairing the analytic-synthetic distinction with the a priori–a posteriori distinction to define his theory of knowledge.

Pragmatism-Philosophical movement first given systematic expression by Charles Sanders Peirce and William James and later taken up and transformed by John Dewey.
Pragmatists emphasize the practical function of knowledge as an instrument for adapting to reality and controlling it. Pragmatism agrees with empiricism in its emphasis on the priority of experience over a priori reasoning.

Pragmatists interpret ideas as instruments and plans of action rather than as images of reality; more specifically, they are suggestions and anticipations of possible conduct, hypotheses or forecasts of what will result from a given action, or ways of organizing behaviour.

Positivism is closely connected with empiricism, pragmatism, and logical positivism. More narrowly, the term designates the philosophy of Auguste Comte, who held that human thought had passed inevitably through a theological stage into a metaphysical stage and was passing into a positive, or scientific, stage.

Empiricism-Either of two closely related philosophical doctrines, one pertaining to concepts and the other to knowledge.

The first doctrine is that most, if not all, concepts are ultimately derived from experience; the second is that most, if not all, knowledge derives from experience, in the sense that appeals to experience are necessarily involved in its justification. Neither doctrine implies the other.

Several empiricists have allowed that some knowledge is a priori, or independent of experience, but have denied that any concepts are. On the other hand, few if any empiricists have denied the existence of a priori knowledge while maintaining the existence of a priori concepts.

In brief, I wanted this thread to allow for discussions on how we as individuals support and/or avoid some of these philosophical concepts and others like them. Faith and Belief or Coffee House, as anyone sees fit! :)

This message has been edited by Phat, 04-19-2006 07:06 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 04-19-2006 10:33 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 20 by John Galt, posted 04-21-2006 9:25 PM Phat has responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 44 (305196)
04-19-2006 9:35 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11563
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 3 of 44 (305215)
04-19-2006 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
04-19-2006 9:03 AM


An a-priori type of guy
Personally, I believe that I am an a-priori type of guy in regards to faith/belief.

Whereas some people start with IF, I start with God. Call it a leap of faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-19-2006 9:03 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by robinrohan, posted 04-19-2006 11:06 AM Phat has responded
 Message 5 by kalimero, posted 04-19-2006 11:06 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 8 by lfen, posted 04-20-2006 1:23 PM Phat has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 44 (305222)
04-19-2006 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
04-19-2006 10:33 AM


Re: An a-priori type of guy
Call it a leap of faith.

And your justification for this leap of faith?


"The whole of life goes like this. We seek repose by battling against difficulties, and once they are overcome, repose becomes unbearable because of the boredom it engenders."--Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 04-19-2006 10:33 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 04-20-2006 9:37 AM robinrohan has responded

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 5 of 44 (305223)
04-19-2006 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
04-19-2006 10:33 AM


Re: An a-priori type of guy
Whereas some people start with IF, I start with God. Call it a leap of faith.

I do, therefore it is bias and unscientific. Without evidence for it, occum's razor just cuts it away.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 04-19-2006 10:33 AM Phat has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11563
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 6 of 44 (305438)
04-20-2006 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by robinrohan
04-19-2006 11:06 AM


Re: An a-priori type of guy
RR writes:

And your justification for this leap of faith?

Now that you mention it, some of my Faith arose from experience. Seeing various circumstances arise that admittedly were attributed to God without critical analysis to prove the contrary. Some of us are just more comfortable to quit trying to prove and examine every single circumstance in life.

As an example, for those whom are married, do you find it necessary to prove that your wife actually loves you? Perhaps she seems busy enough with her life that there is no observable proof for days or weeks at a time. Or perhaps its the other way around....you are the one who forgets the aniversary or the special day...

yet she does not demand proof from you nor you from her! (:D Well..in most cases!)

The moment that God became a reality in my life was one of those know that I know that I know that I know type of moments that many empirical thinkers and critical thinkers tend to never allow themselves to experience.

So, yes...it was a proverbial leap of faith.

No, it was not committed to without thought. And...

No, it is not an irrational and unreasonable faith for me.

I find my relationship with God to be challenging and at the same time liberating. At the same time, I can see where many critical thinkers never allow their emotions to get in the way of their faith.

One of my friends is a staunch Roman Catholic and, coincidentally, a very learned Physics graduate who works for Ball Aerospace. He can at the one moment explain to me things that would stump many a learned mind...(he is pro-evolution, BTW)

but yet at the same moment, his faith allows him to believe in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist! I, being one of those Protestants, always figured that I was drinking Grape Juice and Saltines (unsalted) but yet also believed in an unseen spiritual communion as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by robinrohan, posted 04-19-2006 11:06 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 04-20-2006 10:21 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Malachi-II, posted 04-30-2006 5:36 AM Phat has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 44 (305443)
04-20-2006 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Phat
04-20-2006 9:37 AM


"sweet reason"
As an example, for those whom are married, do you find it necessary to prove that your wife actually loves you?

Actually, this sort of inductive testing does take place in marriages quite often.

Some of us are just more comfortable to quit trying to prove and examine every single circumstance in life.

Not every single circumstance, no. But the existence or non-existence of God is not your garden-variety circumstance. It's fundamental. Now, my own stance is that one tries to figure matters out. One reasons it through. Some people seem not to believe in "reason." I suppose they think they have reasonable reasons why reason doesn't work--a contradiction by my way of thinking. Reason is the given: we go from there. You can't get "outside" of Reason.

So according to my scheme, there is a 50/50 chance that God exists. Moreover, I've reasoned it out (less certainly) that only one type of God could exist (all-knowing, all-good, etc). I've also reasoned it out that the moral argument against God is invalid (if our morality is subjective, then it can't count as evidence for or against anything, such as the existence or non-existence of God). And so my previous argument that the painful nature of the evolutionary process proves that God doesn't exist fails on those grounds. On the other hand, if God does exist, he is cruel if we grant the truth of evolution--in that if God does exist, that could possibly mean our moral ideas are objective.

That's about as far as I've gotten so far.


"The whole of life goes like this. We seek repose by battling against difficulties, and once they are overcome, repose becomes unbearable because of the boredom it engenders."--Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 04-20-2006 9:37 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Chronos, posted 04-20-2006 3:38 PM robinrohan has responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2652 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 8 of 44 (305492)
04-20-2006 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
04-19-2006 10:33 AM


Re: An a-priori type of guy
a priori is an interesting position. What did you start with at birth? Or when you said your first word?

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 04-19-2006 10:33 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 04-20-2006 3:53 PM lfen has responded

  
Chronos
Member (Idle past 4200 days)
Posts: 102
From: Macomb, Mi, USA
Joined: 10-23-2005


Message 9 of 44 (305506)
04-20-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by robinrohan
04-20-2006 10:21 AM


Re: "sweet reason"
So according to my scheme, there is a 50/50 chance that God exists.

I would really like to see this scheme layed out (perhaps in a new thread?)

Moreover, I've reasoned it out (less certainly) that only one type of God could exist (all-knowing, all-good, etc).

I would also like to see the "reasoning" that lead you to this conclusion. More specifically, how do you rule out the existence of, say, an ignorant (in the sense that it is unaware of things such as planet earth) and cruel God?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 04-20-2006 10:21 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by robinrohan, posted 04-20-2006 3:59 PM Chronos has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11563
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 10 of 44 (305508)
04-20-2006 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by lfen
04-20-2006 1:23 PM


Re: An a-priori type of guy
Ifen writes:

What did you start with at birth? Or when you said your first word?

"Dadda"?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by lfen, posted 04-20-2006 1:23 PM lfen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by lfen, posted 04-20-2006 10:23 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 44 (305510)
04-20-2006 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chronos
04-20-2006 3:38 PM


Re: "sweet reason"
would really like to see this scheme layed out (perhaps in a new thread?)

Moreover, I've reasoned it out (less certainly) that only one type of God could exist (all-knowing, all-good, etc).

I would also like to see the "reasoning" that lead you to this conclusion. More specifically, how do you rule out the existence of, say, an ignorant (in the sense that it is unaware of things such as planet earth) and cruel God?

I've talked about this before but could do it again in a new thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chronos, posted 04-20-2006 3:38 PM Chronos has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2652 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 12 of 44 (305570)
04-20-2006 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Phat
04-20-2006 3:53 PM


Re: An a-priori type of guy
"Dadda"?

Your first word? But what was the a priori belief involved? I am trying to undersatand what you knew prior to being educated or to learning through experience about the world.

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 04-20-2006 3:53 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by nwr, posted 04-20-2006 11:28 PM lfen has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5584
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 13 of 44 (305577)
04-20-2006 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by lfen
04-20-2006 10:23 PM


Re: An a-priori type of guy
But what was the a priori belief involved? I am trying to undersatand what you knew prior to being educated or to learning through experience about the world.

As used by philosophers, a priori is not the same as innate. For example, mathematical truth is considered a priori, since it is not truth about empirical reality. But there is no assumption that it was known innately.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by lfen, posted 04-20-2006 10:23 PM lfen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by lfen, posted 04-20-2006 11:57 PM nwr has not yet responded
 Message 15 by robinrohan, posted 04-21-2006 5:50 AM nwr has responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2652 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 14 of 44 (305581)
04-20-2006 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by nwr
04-20-2006 11:28 PM


Re: An a-priori type of guy
You are right I had conflated the two.

I still wonder then what Phat knows a priori about God versus what he derived from evidence. I don't think I know anything a priori about God at all.

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by nwr, posted 04-20-2006 11:28 PM nwr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Phat, posted 04-22-2006 1:41 AM lfen has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 44 (305616)
04-21-2006 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by nwr
04-20-2006 11:28 PM


Re: An a-priori type of guy
For example, mathematical truth is considered a priori

So "a priori" means "deductive"?


"The whole of life goes like this. We seek repose by battling against difficulties, and once they are overcome, repose becomes unbearable because of the boredom it engenders."--Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by nwr, posted 04-20-2006 11:28 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 04-21-2006 8:06 AM robinrohan has responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018