Post Reply
Page 10 of 12  •  Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Switch to Forum Live View What's in the myst?
2 years ago  ::  Apr 03, 2012 - 3:39AM #91
Namchuck
Posts: 11,345



Williejhonlo:


Is it not a fact that we are not perfect beings? As you have said," our senses make terrible guides" Since logic and reason depend on these terrible guides makes them not absolutely reliable.


I don't know why anyone would bother even talking about "perfect beings" seeing as there isn't the slightest evidence that there are such entities.


We humans, for instance, still carry around with us some pretty heavy evolutionary baggage that will keep us far from perfection for a long long time to come.


And I have never said that "our senses" are terrible guides. While our senses are doubtless imperfect, the methodologies of reason have unarguably proven to be our best tools in uncovering the nature of Nature and working out how we should best live.


I think I said that it was our emotions that were good servants, but not so good guides.


But you are right, even reason and logic are not "absolutely" reliable, but I don't think anyone ever said that they were. 




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 03, 2012 - 3:42AM #92
Namchuck
Posts: 11,345

Williejhonlo:


'Yes, popularity itself doesn't make one view better than another. It just proves that our taste are different because what is believable varies from person to person.'




There is, of course, and contrary to Watts, no fashion in science. It's methodologies and convergences see to that.


And why waste our time with arbitrary beliefs when it is truth that we should be concerned about?


And it is right here, in our search for truth, that reason has proven itself our best tool.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 03, 2012 - 12:58PM #93
Neomonist
Posts: 2,690

Apr 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Yes, popularity itself doesn't make one view better than another. It just proves that our taste are different because what is believable varies from person to person.




The variety is what makes life interesting.

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 03, 2012 - 1:52PM #94
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,444

Apr 3, 2012 -- 12:58PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Yes, popularity itself doesn't make one view better than another. It just proves that our taste are different because what is believable varies from person to person.




The variety is what makes life interesting.



And the variety is there because we as finite beings, being limited by time, place, and circumstances can never be perfect knowers. We rely on perception more than anything else to understand reality.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 03, 2012 - 2:31PM #95
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,444

Apr 3, 2012 -- 3:42AM, Namchuck wrote:


Williejhonlo:


'Yes, popularity itself doesn't make one view better than another. It just proves that our taste are different because what is believable varies from person to person.'




There is, of course, and contrary to Watts, no fashion in science. It's methodologies and convergences see to that.


And why waste our time with arbitrary beliefs when it is truth that we should be concerned about?


And it is right here, in our search for truth, that reason has proven itself our best tool.



To me, reason is subservient to experience. All our tools, such as our senses, reason, logic, are subservient to experience. And experience in a sense is subservient to the senses since the senses supply data that allows us to comprehend. Experience is still the underlying factor though because even the understanding of this relationship depends on our experiencing it.


To me, the truth has always been is do you accept an absolute truth or not? And what is the nature of that absolute truth? Outside of trying to fiqure out if there is an absolute truth, I see no reason to search for truth.


Now comes the question, can we as finite beings being limited by time, place, and circumstances ever fully comprehend the truth or only sense it?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 03, 2012 - 2:43PM #96
Neomonist
Posts: 2,690

Apr 3, 2012 -- 1:52PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 3, 2012 -- 12:58PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Yes, popularity itself doesn't make one view better than another. It just proves that our taste are different because what is believable varies from person to person.




The variety is what makes life interesting.



And the variety is there because we as finite beings, being limited by time, place, and circumstances can never be perfect knowers. We rely on perception more than anything else to understand reality.





I submit that being perfect knowers would get boring after a while.

Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 2:45AM #97
Namchuck
Posts: 11,345


[/quote]
To me, reason is subservient to experience. All our tools, such as our senses, reason, logic, are subservient to experience. And experience in a sense is subservient to the senses since the senses supply data that allows us to comprehend. Experience is still the underlying factor though because even the understanding of this relationship depends on our experiencing it.


It is obviously reason that makes sense out of the bubbling confusion that is called "experience". Hence, reason hardly plays a subordinate or subservient role.


To me, the truth has always been is do you accept an absolute truth or not?


As absolute truths are hard to indentify, our best shot at truth is to establish what we can beyond reasonable doubt.



And what is the nature of that absolute truth? Outside of trying to fiqure out if there is an absolute truth, I see no reason to search for truth.


That is, for very obvious reasons, a rather anorexic view, williejhonlo. Given the undoubted limitations of our methods for uncovering truth, most reasonable people are satisfied with pursuing more humble forms of it.


Now comes the question, can we as finite beings being limited by time, place, and circumstances ever fully comprehend the truth or only sense it?


Again, we are in possession of tools that enable us to discover truths beyond reasonable doubt. We really don't have to concern ourselves with "absolutes". That is the playground of the self-deluded.  


[/quote]


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 12:33PM #98
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,444

Apr 4, 2012 -- 2:45AM, Namchuck wrote:




To me, reason is subservient to experience. All our tools, such as our senses, reason, logic, are subservient to experience. And experience in a sense is subservient to the senses since the senses supply data that allows us to comprehend. Experience is still the underlying factor though because even the understanding of this relationship depends on our experiencing it.


It is obviously reason that makes sense out of the bubbling confusion that is called "experience". Hence, reason hardly plays a subordinate or subservient role.


To me, the truth has always been is do you accept an absolute truth or not?


As absolute truths are hard to indentify, our best shot at truth is to establish what we can beyond reasonable doubt.



And what is the nature of that absolute truth? Outside of trying to fiqure out if there is an absolute truth, I see no reason to search for truth.


That is, for very obvious reasons, a rather anorexic view, williejhonlo. Given the undoubted limitations of our methods for uncovering truth, most reasonable people are satisfied with pursuing more humble forms of it.


Now comes the question, can we as finite beings being limited by time, place, and circumstances ever fully comprehend the truth or only sense it?


Again, we are in possession of tools that enable us to discover truths beyond reasonable doubt. We really don't have to concern ourselves with "absolutes". That is the playground of the self-deluded.  







To me, we need something to experience before we can use reason to make sense of it. Of course experiencing in itself Isn't enough to define what we experience, so, to me, they are subordinate or submissive to each other in some respect.


I don't have a problem in seeing an absolute truth beause I know it isn't me. By absolute truth I mean Supreme provider.  As for seeking after truth, that is something we do by nature. It is our nature to be inquisitive, to inquire, and I don't see that nature changing anytime soon.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 4:56PM #99
Namchuck
Posts: 11,345



Williejhonlo:


'To me, we need something to experience before we can use reason to make sense of it. Of course experiencing in itself Isn't enough to define what we experience, so, to me, they are subordinate or submissive to each other in some respect.


I don't have a problem in seeing an absolute truth beause I know it isn't me. By absolute truth I mean Supreme provider.  As for seeking after truth, that is something we do by nature. It is our nature to be inquisitive, to inquire, and I don't see that nature changing anytime soon.'


We are fundamentally sensory creatures so, consequently, we experience the sensory world around us. We have also evolved apparatus and developed tools to make sense of the sensory world, reason being our most successful tool.


Rather than talk unnecessarily in terms of "subordinate" or "submissive", one can recognise that - for most humans - experience and reason go hand and hand. 


And I simply don't know what you are talking about when you assert that you "...don't have a problem seeing an absolute truth because I know it isn't me"? Are you suggesting that you, or your own finite existence, is somehow the arbiter of the absolute!?


The same applies to your definition of absolute truth as a "Supreme provider". What on Earth can this mean, and that without becoming entrenched in the problem of infinite regression? 


 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 1:06AM #100
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,444

Oh no, I'm no arbiter, when I said, "it isn't me" I'm stating my constitutional position as always being in need. It's my realization that I'm not independent to act,Without things being provided I don't think I could survive.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 10 of 12  •  Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook