Refuting "the problem of evil"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2014, 07:20 PM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
Quote:
Quote:Phil: In terms of the perceptions, if I look at the facts of my actual awareness I notice I can discern and perceive in 3 primary (but somewhat separate) dimensions or domains of awareness: Beauty, Goodness and Truth. So for a given perception of a "quality", the perception may be formed by any single one one of these domains or a mixture of all of them.

Phil

That is your reality. I don't subscribe to that.

Phil - are you aware of husserl's phenomenology ?
Looks like your going down the phenomological path here but this tells you nothing about transcendental universals your discussing.
beauty
I stand by by original point on an earlier post that beauty is an adjective that is relative and subjective belonging to philosophy of aesthetics not epistemology.
Yes, sometimes a true theory can be described as "beautiful" but this is not necessarily a reliable guide for doing epistemology or finding transcendental universals if they exist.

Goodness I have already explained has no single definition and cannot be a transcendental universal in the Platonistic sense since we have a plurality of definitions.
-In philosophy of language "Good" will fall under the "language games" Wittgenstein discussed when skeptical of transcendental universals. If your not familiar with this (sorry I'm name dropping) then basically there is no single definition of "Good" everyone will agree on that can possibly relate to some single transcendental universal. Again goodness is an adjective which is subjective to human perceptions.

As for Truth - I already discussed this and expanded on this on some posts to Muslim on another thread you saw. see #114
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...of?page=12
As a philosophical realist I do believe there is "truth" when following a reliable epistemology such as found within evidentialism & the scientific method.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 12:02 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(24-08-2014 05:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  Of course it is, but you didn't acknowledge that there are prescriptive dictionaries vs descriptive dictionaries, and that not all language change is positive.

When the meanings of two different words are confused, that is a loss to the language.
These two words are such a case. Drinking Beverage
As far as I know, when it comes to English, there are virtually no more prescriptive dictionaries.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 01:02 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(24-08-2014 05:00 PM)Baruch Wrote:  So Phil - one again the Qualities of water are emergent and not some hidden potential in H & O.

Actually I think - from inside of your perspective as I understand it, and from the facts you have access to, this is the whole truth of the matter.

My perspective does not contradict it, because my perspective also sees that water (as something actually manifest) is actually a product of emergence. Although obviously, there is something else here going on because there are other things I'm saying.

Re quarks, what happened in 1964, did someone discover one in his pocket? Eg actually see a quark, and therefore know of their existence? Or was the existence of these entities initially revealed in other ways?

Quote:In this case the emergence ALSO requires conscious beings if your including phenomenal qualities not just quantities. Obviously you cannot have phenomenal qualities of there is no one to perceive the phenomena eg a rainbow is still a reflection of various wavelengths of light but only "blue" is a conscious being perceives blue.
"Wetness" as an emergent property of water is not necessarily phenomenal because laws of fluid dynamics still exist regardless if there is an observer.

I think "blue" and "wetness" are both examples of things where our experience of them is a part-pointer to the nature of the underlying reality and a part-pointer to our own mind's way of classifying and highlighting differentiations. So I'm not sure what distinction you are making between those two?

Reality occurs to me as an indivisible nonduality, e.g. I see no concrete or absolute separation between any phenomena. There's relative separation (enough separation for talk of separate phenomena to be meaningful) but not absolute separation. The separations and distinctions that do appear are a projection of my own mind, e.g. a projection of it's desire to split and separate things into separate boxes in order to categorise and control, and the separations are formed not from what I do know, but from what I don't know e.g things appear separate until I investigate a bit more deeply, then I always seem to find processes that connect the entities in some way. So "separation" in a sense resolves to "ignorance".

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 01:38 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(24-08-2014 05:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 12:33 PM)phil.a Wrote:  I think I'd define qualities as "perceptual differentiations of reality" that are known of relative to each other, e.g. qualities are known through the knowing of other qualities. I know of "hot" through the fact I know of "cold", and vice versa.

No, you don't. There have been many people who never experienced cold but did experience hot.

Please explain that claim further.

I don't think they will have experienced "hot" as "hot", but rather as a bunch of other (symptomatic) phenomena. E.g imagine if there were was a tribe of people living somewhere where the temperature remained completely constant 24/7, 12 months of the year, but was just above the comfortable temperature range for humans.

I don't think they would have a word for "hot", and think the'd describe the heat as nausea, sweatiness, etc. E.g. would describe it in terms of other phenomena of which they might have in fact a cause for a relative knowing of the phenomena.


Quote:People are aware of differences, but they need not be opposites.

I think primary distinctions are always created by differentiating opposites. Any of those opposites may then be further differentiated (split into opposites), creating a subordinate pair of sub-qualities neither of which is of and by itself the true and complete opposite of the original differentiation.

Eg, consider a square coin - heads is the opposite of tails. Heads could be differentiated as the "top edge" and the "bottom edge".

Well, "heads top edge" isn't the opposite of tails.

("heads top edge" plus "heads bottom edge", all integrated in the dimension of "height") is the opposite of "tails".

But the knowing of "top edge" (of heads) is in a sense relative to a knowing of tails, even if it's not a complete opposite.

Quote:
Quote:In terms of the perceptions, if I look at the facts of my actual awareness I notice I can discern and perceive in 3 primary (but somewhat separate) dimensions or domains of awareness: Beauty, Goodness and Truth. So for a given perception of a "quality", the perception may be formed by any single one one of these domains or a mixture of all of them.

Phil

That is your reality. I don't subscribe to that.

And yet I subscribe to your reality.

If we look at this using set theory, surely that means your reality is a subset of my reality?

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 02:03 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(24-08-2014 05:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  If you can't give a coherent explanation is plain language without jargon, then you probably don't have a coherent understanding yourself.

OK so now demonstrate that you have a coherent understanding of relativity by giving a 5 year old a "coherent explanation is plain language without jargon" ;-)

Actually, I agree with your point, but in fact earlier I stated my understanding concisely and in a few simple words, and it was dismissed as meaningless and in need of full explanation.

I responded to that with an expanded and more verbose explanation, which I now see is being dismissed because it is too verbose.

This is moving the goalposts. Not just moving the goalposts, but moving them in a circle! Moving the goalposts is a symptom of something.

I'll give you the concise and coherent explanation again. In simple words:

Reality is a dialectic of Beauty, Goodness and Truth.

Because this is doubtless "word salad" inside your perspective, allow me to put more dressing on it.

Your terse style of debate is a clear expression this dialectic in action, you are a zen master of dialectics. So, since you are a fact of reality, if i need to present evidence for what I'm saying, then i present you.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 02:16 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(24-08-2014 07:00 PM)Baruch Wrote:  In terms you may understand of "Beauty, Truth and Goodness" your explanation is:
Unintelligible therefore an ugly presentation.
Cannot be good because you cannot explain it therefore has no wholeness/completeness/Goodness.
As for Truth - It is unintelligible so by definition cannot be true.

Yes I agree with that, but the situation we have here may be hopeless, in that it may just be a fact of the situation that my ideas simply won't make sense inside your perspective. If that's so - then there's not much I personally can do about that.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 03:50 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2014 03:59 AM by phil.a.)
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(24-08-2014 07:20 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Phil - are you aware of husserl's phenomenology ?
Looks like your going down the phenomological path here but this tells you nothing about transcendental universals your discussing.

I guess I am going down something of a phenomenological path with my explanation of what the word "qualities" means to me. But the only reason I did that was to try and make visible to you my understanding of that word. I myself don't identify as a phenomenologist.

Quote:beauty
I stand by by original point on an earlier post that beauty is an adjective that is relative and subjective belonging to philosophy of aesthetics not epistemology.
Yes, sometimes a true theory can be described as "beautiful" but this is not necessarily a reliable guide for doing epistemology or finding transcendental universals if they exist.

OK I understand this and agree with it, but you've just repeated your position and not reflected back any understanding of my position. I'll have another go at explaining that.

I accept that all humans see beauty in different places. So insofar as we are talking about particular objects, we'll never get agreement on wether they are beautiful or not.

However I would say that Beauty exists wherever it's seen, so perhaps (in a rather rough and ready way that's not fully accurate) I could define Beauty the transcendental as the sum total of all individual human experiences of beauty. Wherever it's seen - there it is!

Trying to create an abstraction of the above and so and get a bit closer to the underlying transcendental, Beauty the transcendental is a higher order "container" which contains all relative human experiences of beauty. Beauty the transcendental is an empty space of relative "beauty" possibility.


Same deal with Goodness, I can apply the same abstract framework to goodness that I just applied to Beauty.

Same too with Truth (although we seem to agree over that one). Truth the transcendental literally appears in our experience as empty 3D space, so we can "see" it. Empty space is the container for all relative truths, since space provides the separation between objects required for those objects to have process relationships. Well, there's a similar thing going on with the other 2 transcendentals.

To me - your position is constructed out of something of a direct reflective awareness of Truth, but a lack of direct reflective awareness of the transcendentals of Beauty and Goodness.

Your post evidences full awareness of relative Goodness and relative Beauty, but the underlying transcendental presently is out of sight.

Since you have awareness of Truth as absolute, you (reasonably!) rely on it but this means you necessarily reduce everything to Truth and discard anything that can't be meaningfully reduced to truth. Well, Beauty & Goodness may not be reduced to truth because they are radically different perspectives or dimensions of knowing. I can talk about the "truth of Beauty" (as I have tried to do above) but to take a truth perspective on Beauty is not the same thing as a direct experience of Beauty in consciousness.

It's like - you could have GU doctor who was an expert on the subject of the biology of sex, but himself had never had sex - e.g. was a virgin.

He might think he knows all about sex, but in a sense he knows nothing about sex because he's not yet directly experienced sex.

Zen calls it "stinking of zen" when someone is an "expert" on zen concepts but hasn't actually had the zen satori experience.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 04:51 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
Quote:Reality occurs to me as an indivisible nonduality, e.g. I see no concrete or absolute separation between any phenomena. There's relative separation (enough separation for talk of separate phenomena to be meaningful) but not absolute separation. The separations and distinctions that do appear are a projection of my own mind, e.g. a projection of it's desire to split and separate things into separate boxes in order to categorise and control, and the separations are formed not from what I do know, but from what I don't know e.g things appear separate until I investigate a bit more deeply, then I always seem to find processes that connect the entities in some way. So "separation" in a sense resolves to "ignorance".


I think your confusing "reality occurs to me as nonduality" vs a metaphysical understanding of reality may be monist.
Monism and pantheism - actually deny any transcendence because reality is made of a single substance (whatever that may be eg energy, matter).
Yes there is no "absolute separation" by any Monist can agree with that be it Bertrand Russell's "Neutral Monism" or George Berkeley's idealism or Baruch Spinoza's Pantheism or even John Searles case for "aspect dualism" (the dualism is just a a human perspective vantage point) or Aristotles hylomorphism. or various forms of physicalism such as Galen Strawson - You can look up the terms & names - but essentially all point to the same thing that reality is "one thing" i.e Monism (without committing to exactly what the substance is in some cases).

The above philosophers are in contrast to the dualistic perspectives such as plato, Descartes, most religious systems etc.
Quote: things appear separate until I investigate a bit more deeply, then I always seem to find processes that connect the entities in some way
Any Monist would agree with this - all the above philosophical traditions.
However this denies the universal transcendentals your talking about (Beauty, Goodness, truth etc) - THESE universal transcendentals fit better within a dualist framework like Plato.

...and by the way - you DON'T experience non duality - your phenomenological perspective is split up and that's an emergent REAL property of your mind NOT an illusion. The fact you see a rainbow in different colours is dependent on your neurology & particularly V1 visual cortex, different wavelengths of light, photoreceptors [cones for colour] in the eyes and a whole host of other factor. These are all real properties which give you a real phenomena of seeing a rainbow as something split up.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 04:55 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
To carry on Phil:
Intellectually from what you don't see you may know reality is monist.
But you phenomenologically experience aspect dualism
You DONT phenomenologically experience "Monism" or "non-dualism"

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 05:02 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
Quote:To me - your position is constructed out of something of a direct reflective awareness of Truth, but a lack of direct reflective awareness of the transcendentals of Beauty and Goodness.

Your post evidences full awareness of relative Goodness and relative Beauty, but the underlying transcendental presently is out of sight.

Since you have awareness of Truth as absolute, you (reasonably!) rely on it but this means you necessarily reduce everything to Truth and discard anything that can't be meaningfully reduced to truth. Well, Beauty & Goodness may not be reduced to truth because they are radically different perspectives or dimensions of knowing. I can talk about the "truth of Beauty" (as I have tried to do above) but to take a truth perspective on Beauty is not the same thing as a direct experience of Beauty in consciousness.

Firstly re-Edit your post as all the quotations are messed up.
What do you mean by lack of direct reflective awareness of the transcendentals of Beauty and Goodness.?
I have phenomenal awareness of Beauty and Goodness (albeit a plurality of definitions & experiences). However these are mind dependent - how can they be something transcendental ?
Anyway - your perspective of non-duality would deny any transcendentals which work better within a dualistic Platonistic metaphysics.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: