Well, obviously we do. Maybe it’s philosophical first principles, maybe it’s something else, but we have reached different conclusions about what we believe/think/etc. is true, and what we don’t believe/think/etc. is true. And that’s fine—that’s what people do.
…
The point is that the physical reality of the universe, of (what we humans call) matter and energy and forces and stars and planets, exists whether we are here to perceive it or not.
…
"Acoustic" in this sense means something that can be heard, usually in relation to most human beings' ability to hear (to a greater or lesser extent).
A pressure wave then. Or a vibration, if you prefer. I’m not sure why you’re being so semantically and obfuscatorily smart-alecky when the underlying concept is perfectly understandable and ready to be discussed.
The falling tree question can address perception, consciousness and existence. It seems quite pertinent.
…
1) As the last living thing joins the Noosphere, Greg Bear imagines an ambiguous, dramatic separation of conscious life from unconscious materials of nature.
...The Noosphere shook loose its wings. Where the wings touched, the stars themselves danced, celebrated, became burning flakes of snow.
Nothing is lost. Nothing is forgotten.
It was in the blood, the flesh,
And now it is forever.
Blood Music by Greg Bear, 98%-99%.
Rather different from silently falling trees.
It seems to me there's a fair degree of overlap with themes of consciousness, perception and existence.
When flakes of snow are falling
snow on snow
does each snowflake make a sound?
Well, obviously we do. Maybe it’s philosophical first principles, maybe it’s something else, but we have reached different conclusions about what we believe/think/etc. is true, and what we don’t believe/think/etc. is true. And that’s fine—that’s what people do.
Indeed. But we apparently cannot discuss what the differences in our definitions of philosophical first principles, according to disposition, are.
I think that if there weren't a reality independent of our perception we couldn't frame the question.
It's a fairly basic level of intelligence for humans to realise that we can see and perceived things that other people can't (dolphins and chimpanzees can manage it as well). From which the extension of the idea to other people see things that we can't, and there are things that nobody can perceive are obvious next steps.
There are quite a lot of aspects of human life that naturally presuppose the idea that there are things nobody perceives.
And of course there is the spiritual and aesthetic aspect:
These things, these things were here, and but the beholder
Wanting; which two when they once meet
The heart rears wings bold and bolder
And hurls for him, O half hurls earth for him off under his feet.
I don't think we can separate ourselves from our own perceptions. There aren't ways to sample the world without bias, there aren't ways to interpret results without bias.
Even if one agreed that there was something there to be understood, it is an open question how much of what is, is and how much is perception.
And, again, Kierkegaard doesn't look like the image of Existentialism being offered here.
A lot of this discussion seems oriented to western metaphysics, well, why not. However, I've been thinking recently about the Hindu notion of atman, or universal self. If the Self pervades all things, throughout time and space, then things seem different. Of course, we are left with other issues, e.g., how do we contact atman?
If every single human disappeared tomorrow, the universe would still exist. The universe is not just some emergent property of human perspicacity. It's real.
in response to me asking what reality it. And are not answering. What does being real mean? Is there another universe that does not have humans in it, and is that also real? How do you know (either way)?
I don't see why me knowing something exists should be a precondition for it actually existing.
This is not purely trivial. There is an argument that the passage of time - the time that the universe has existed - is only as a result of our perception (that is based on Carlo Rimini).
It's not an argument with which I agree. Physical and chemical interactions and reactions occur regardless of their being observed or not. Kepler's Star existed for billions of years until it exploded, and it took tens of thousands of years before the light from its explosion was observed here on Earth - it did not somehow spring into being, history and all, in 1604.
I'll agree that without observation something cannot be known to exist. But that's very far indeed from saying that without observation nothing can exist at all.
The falling tree question can address perception, consciousness and existence. It seems quite pertinent.
Oh sure, it can raise all kinds of fun questions about that stuff. But that's all about how we perceive and describe reality, not about reality itself. As Einstein asked Pais, do you really believe that the moon only exists if you look at it?
Let's put it another way. Does a vaquita (*) only exist if a human being can see it?
The position that things only exist in relation to human beings has I think undesirable consequences for the natural world.
One of the reasons for delight in wild animals, or plants even, is just the appreciation of the fact that they're going about their business with no reference to us.
The falling tree question can address perception, consciousness and existence. It seems quite pertinent.
Oh sure, it can raise all kinds of fun questions about that stuff. But that's all about how we perceive and describe reality, not about reality itself. As Einstein asked Pais, do you really believe that the moon only exists if you look at it?
Or that Schrödinger's cat is alive and dead? Utter nonsense. As Schrödinger was deliberately demonstrating in his understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation. Although some have even pretended to believe the nonsense, apparently.
The trouble is that the concept of Existentialism itself evolved from the ideas put forward by Kierkegaard, through the minds of others including Satre.
Being entirely boring about it, Kierkegaard was reacting against the ideas of Hegel, whilst remaining (at least in his own mind (kind of)) within Christianity. For Kierkegaard, the philosophy of Hegel seemed to have saturated western Christianity and his job was to release people from the straightjacket. Other later Existentialists went further, of course.
...
And, again, Kierkegaard doesn't look like the image of Existentialism being offered here.
I would make a distinction between christian existentialism (Kierkegaard) and atheistic existentialism (Kierkegaard / Nietzsche), with which Sartre is notably associated.
Of course, this [existentialism] is also the basis of belief in conspiracies.
I think you are putting words into my mouth which aren't there.
I wasn't saying that existentialism is the basis of belief in conspiracies, I was refering to the ideas from the film The Matrix.
Happy to talk about things that I've actually written if you like.
Sorry.
I'm intrigued about differences you see between Kierkegaard and references to existentialism on this thread. (I'm not sure how specific you were being in the comment in your earlier post.)
The falling tree question can address perception, consciousness and existence. It seems quite pertinent.
Oh sure, it can raise all kinds of fun questions about that stuff. But that's all about how we perceive and describe reality, not about reality itself. As Einstein asked Pais, do you really believe that the moon only exists if you look at it?
Or that Schrödinger's cat is alive and dead? Utter nonsense. As Schrödinger was deliberately demonstrating in his understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation. Although some have even pretended to believe the nonsense, apparently.
Or maybe they really do, without pretending anything.
Indeed. But we apparently cannot discuss what the differences in our definitions of philosophical first principles, according to disposition, are.
Yes, pease , I don't know what the universe was like before we described it. I guess nominalists would say, exactly as it is described.
I know.
We've been describing it archaeologically, culturally for ten thousand years. Accurately starting four hundred. I mean really well for a hundred. As good
So it keeps telling us what it was like hundreds and thousands and billions of years ago all the time.
Reminds me of the Zen koan, what was your face like, before your parents were born?
In my dotage I can't see any analogy, resonance. But that's beholders' shares for you. Light cones don't have the rich, epicyclic paradoxes of the koan, which is deliberately meaningless I realise.
What intrinsic meaning could at least some things have? What things? What essence could anything have beyond being?
Well, you see, that's precisely existentialism in a nutshell--the idea that any meaning anything has is only something humans stamp onto it, not something it has in itself.
So the answer is nothing? No some things? Have any meaning or essence, whatever they could be? The only positable entity with essence is Love where essence - Love - is being - Love. Love would include all infinite nature and transcendence from eternity, all would have meaning, all would be expression, substance of Love.
That would be nice.
Metaphysical essence, substance otherwise has no meaning in nature, reality. In our narratives of nature. Despite emerging in them even to the point of being... essential to a minority of sociologists, according to Wiki and therefore not... substantial, not scholarly enough? Therefore we must ignore what it apparently superficially says about essentialism being a hard wired developmental cognitive bias?
In nature essence is (physical) substance. Matter. What is the essence of essence? Nature, always nature, ultimately, rapidly, utterly ineffable nature. Physics. Quantum noise in what would be otherwise absolutely nothing, a dimensionless vacuum, oblivion. From that we apparently get universes emerging from colliding five dimensional structures in hyperspace. Essentially.
As your second link (“it”) says, “There is a difference between metaphysical essentialism and psychological essentialism…” —yes, I’m talking about the metaphysical kind here. And whether or not it is hard-wired tells us nothing about whether or not essentialism is true. Perhaps, like our eyes perceive light (which is also real), it is there to help us understand that kind of reality.
It's not true in any (epistemo)logical sense. It's true for you, subjectively; a matter of belief. It has meaning for you. It is not objective, detached, disinterested, consilient knowledge.
Yeah, obviously we don’t agree about this.
Generally speaking, in discussion where people might not agree, it’s often better to use what are called “I statements” (I believe X, etc.), because otherwise you can just have someone say that it’s not true and the other one says it is true and the other one says it’s not true and the other one says it is true and it goes on forever.
I believe Essentialism is true. You do not. I think this has been established now.
I don't, can not, believe. Period. So I cannot believe that essentialism is true in any epistemological sense, which cannot be advanced as that too would be a matter of belief, in infinite regress: I would have to believe things about epistemology that aren't true.
That you believe aren’t true. Or that you don’t believe are true.
That I know aren't true. That I have coherent justified true belief aren't true. Or that I can't have coherent justified true belief are true.
The falling tree question can address perception, consciousness and existence. It seems quite pertinent.
Oh sure, it can raise all kinds of fun questions about that stuff. But that's all about how we perceive and describe reality, not about reality itself. As Einstein asked Pais, do you really believe that the moon only exists if you look at it?
Or that Schrödinger's cat is alive and dead? Utter nonsense. As Schrödinger was deliberately demonstrating in his understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation. Although some have even pretended to believe the nonsense, apparently.
Or maybe they really do, without pretending anything.
Some do I'm sure. And some merely pretended, I'm also sure. Schrödinger surely didn't.
Indeed. But we apparently cannot discuss what the differences in our definitions of philosophical first principles, according to disposition, are.
I don’t understand, but moving on…
Moving on can be seen to make my point. Previously you could not discuss this. I feel I cannot say more. I feel in the thinnest ice.
That I know aren't true. That I have coherent justified true belief aren't true. Or that I can't have coherent justified true belief are true.
I think of the three options, the last one is best, because it doesn't demand the reader accept that you definitively "know" things, or that your own beliefs are "justified" or "true."
I believe, as is likely visible, in essentialism (of at least some kinds), rather than existentialism. But in discussion or debate, even if I were on some absolute level convinced that it was absolute truth, with no chance I could ever be wrong about it, I would still try to say "I believe X" rather than "I know X is true" or "I have coherent justified true belief that X is true."
Moving on can be seen to make my point. Previously you could not discuss this. I feel I cannot say more. I feel in the thinnest ice.
I'm genuinely lost here at this point. If this is in reference to issues and such from a few months back that led to difficulties on the Ship (I'm guessing this is what the "thinnest ice" is a reference to), I don't want to make things difficult.
I think you are putting words into my mouth which aren't there.
I wasn't saying that existentialism is the basis of belief in conspiracies, I was refering to the ideas from the film The Matrix.
Happy to talk about things that I've actually written if you like.
Sorry.
I'm intrigued about differences you see between Kierkegaard and references to existentialism on this thread. (I'm not sure how specific you were being in the comment in your earlier post.)
Of course Kierkegaard is notoriously difficult to understand.
My view is something like this. (But be aware that this is just an imperfect impression based on imperfect understanding of a complex thing.)
K believed that society was being constrained by unwritten rules which meant that individuals in practice had limited autonomy. There were things that could and couldn't be said, mental barriers on the limits of religious thinking, accepted norms that would never be examined. And I think he wanted to strip those right back, call bullshit on them and be much more playful about freeing individuals and their intellects.
I don't think he was saying that there is no ultimate reality and that the only real things were those that one experienced, just that there were more options than most people thought there were and that the religious authorities had no right to impose ideas onto people.
I think other philosophers later went much further than this.
The Matrix is an interesting Existentialist film, I think. It portrays a reality which has been overlayed with another. And Neo has to make a Kierkegaardian leap of faith into deeper understanding that everything that he experienced was fake and that there was something deeper going on. Which is also a sense shared with conspiracy theorists.
The point there being that Neo doesn't in a sense manipulate reality but learns to be able to manipulate the way that he experiences reality.
I think you are putting words into my mouth which aren't there.
I wasn't saying that existentialism is the basis of belief in conspiracies, I was refering to the ideas from the film The Matrix.
Happy to talk about things that I've actually written if you like.
Sorry.
I'm intrigued about differences you see between Kierkegaard and references to existentialism on this thread. (I'm not sure how specific you were being in the comment in your earlier post.)
Of course Kierkegaard is notoriously difficult to understand.
My view is something like this. (But be aware that this is just an imperfect impression based on imperfect understanding of a complex thing.)
K believed that society was being constrained by unwritten rules which meant that individuals in practice had limited autonomy. There were things that could and couldn't be said, mental barriers on the limits of religious thinking, accepted norms that would never be examined. And I think he wanted to strip those right back, call bullshit on them and be much more playful about freeing individuals and their intellects.
I don't think he was saying that there is no ultimate reality and that the only real things were those that one experienced, just that there were more options than most people thought there were and that the religious authorities had no right to impose ideas onto people.
I think other philosophers later went much further than this.
The Matrix is an interesting Existentialist film, I think. It portrays a reality which has been overlayed with another. And Neo has to make a Kierkegaardian leap of faith into deeper understanding that everything that he experienced was fake and that there was something deeper going on. Which is also a sense shared with conspiracy theorists.
The point there being that Neo doesn't in a sense manipulate reality but learns to be able to manipulate the way that he experiences reality.
Does that make any more sense?
Re: “ I think other philosophers later went much further than this”—absolutely. When I’m talking about essentialism (the idea that there is an intrinsic meaning and essence to things that humans do not create, but discover) vs. existentialism (the idea that there is no intrinsic meaning or essence to things other than what humans make up), it’s the later kind of existentialism I mean, not what you describe here regarding Kierkegaard. Or even technically the Matrix, since Neo does find out about a genuinely real world beyond the illusion of the Matrix (I’ve only seen the first film, myself).
There is definitely a way that at least terminology from the Matrix has become used/misused by conspiracy theorists (red pill, etc.), but that might be better as its own thread.
That I know aren't true. That I have coherent justified true belief aren't true. Or that I can't have coherent justified true belief are true.
I think of the three options, the last one is best, because it doesn't demand the reader accept that you definitively "know" things, or that your own beliefs are "justified" or "true."
I believe, as is likely visible, in essentialism (of at least some kinds), rather than existentialism. But in discussion or debate, even if I were on some absolute level convinced that it was absolute truth, with no chance I could ever be wrong about it, I would still try to say "I believe X" rather than "I know X is true" or "I have coherent justified true belief that X is true."
The three options deconstruct to the same meaning. Knowledge is coherent justified true belief. Knowing is coherent justified true believing.
I know that essentialism is not coherent justified true belief. We can get in to an infinite regress, or do what mathematicians do and sum, wrap it all up, integrate it to infinity. I believe that is more knowing, to say the least, than I believe in. I believe that, I know that, nature, being, does not need unnatural, essential explanations. I don't believe in that. I don't believe in nature, being, not needing unnatural, essential explanations. It doesn't. Except for most believers.
Moving on can be seen to make my point. Previously you could not discuss this. I feel I cannot say more. I feel in the thinnest ice.
I'm genuinely lost here at this point. If this is in reference to issues and such from a few months back that led to difficulties on the Ship (I'm guessing this is what the "thinnest ice" is a reference to), I don't want to make things difficult.
@ChastMastr, my friend, you couldn't make things difficult. I am the author of my own misfortune.
I woke up this morning realising in deep cognitive dissonance what a fool I've been. I feel the need to apologize, too late, in the Styx. So I must.
But how can you know that something is “coherent justified or true”. History is full of examples of people who thought they had a “coherent justified true belief” but turned out to be wrong. It’s simply the modernist fallacy to assume that what we now “know” might not also prove to be wrong, or at the very least partial or incomplete, in the future.
But how can you know that something is “coherent justified or true”. History is full of examples of people who thought they had a “coherent justified true belief” but turned out to be wrong. It’s simply the modernist fallacy to assume that what we now “know” might not also prove to be wrong, or at the very least partial or incomplete, in the future.
Not my counter. I'm not subject to that fallacy. That's all part of epistemology isn't it? As science is practiced. We know that science is incomplete, approximate, coherent justified truth, dynamically, at all times, as it changes with each datum. I'd drop dead of happiness if science detected Love, or a single six sigma instance of the fingerpost. A miracle that turned Dawkins, Dennett (in his grave), Gervais. If Love did reveal itself as the ground of being in any way, there could be no sane, meaningful doubt. It's a funny kind of Love that doesn't. Won't. Can't.
The falling tree question can address perception, consciousness and existence. It seems quite pertinent.
Oh sure, it can raise all kinds of fun questions about that stuff. But that's all about how we perceive and describe reality, not about reality itself. As Einstein asked Pais, do you really believe that the moon only exists if you look at it?
Or that Schrödinger's cat is alive and dead? Utter nonsense. As Schrödinger was deliberately demonstrating in his understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation. Although some have even pretended to believe the nonsense, apparently.
He was pointing out the inherent absurdities. Which doesn't mean he didn't accept it, just that it was not easily comprehended.
As Feynman explained - if you think you understand Quantum Physics, you don't. One of the critical aspects of the early development was that understanding of the truth and reality of paradox in the universe we experience.
The falling tree question can address perception, consciousness and existence. It seems quite pertinent.
Oh sure, it can raise all kinds of fun questions about that stuff. But that's all about how we perceive and describe reality, not about reality itself. As Einstein asked Pais, do you really believe that the moon only exists if you look at it?
To return to the opening post, I would say that scientific realism (the view that science describes reality, regardless of interpretation) is yet another perspective for thinking about the world, and that it isn't possible to say it's any more true or false than essentialism or existentialism. It is possible to believe that one or other is better, according to some criteria.
The falling tree question can address perception, consciousness and existence. It seems quite pertinent.
Oh sure, it can raise all kinds of fun questions about that stuff. But that's all about how we perceive and describe reality, not about reality itself. As Einstein asked Pais, do you really believe that the moon only exists if you look at it?
Or that Schrödinger's cat is alive and dead? Utter nonsense. As Schrödinger was deliberately demonstrating in his understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation. Although some have even pretended to believe the nonsense, apparently.
He was pointing out the inherent absurdities. Which doesn't mean he didn't accept it, just that it was not easily comprehended.
As Feynman explained - if you think you understand Quantum Physics, you don't. One of the critical aspects of the early development was that understanding of the truth and reality of paradox in the universe we experience.
A fine distinction. Yes. I'm sure he accepted it, incomprehensible warts and all, as Dick perfectly encapsulated. Who doesn't?
The falling tree question can address perception, consciousness and existence. It seems quite pertinent.
Oh sure, it can raise all kinds of fun questions about that stuff. But that's all about how we perceive and describe reality, not about reality itself. As Einstein asked Pais, do you really believe that the moon only exists if you look at it?
To return to the opening post, I would say that scientific realism (the view that science describes reality, regardless of interpretation) is yet another perspective for thinking about the world, and that it isn't possible to say it's any more true or false than essentialism or existentialism. It is possible to believe that one or other is better, according to some criteria.
Oh dear, as I rather hoped we wouldn't, we have strayed into quantum physics territory. Best book I've read on all this is Phillip Ball's 'Beyond Weird'.
As to, 'If Love did reveal itself as the ground of being in any way, there could be no sane, meaningful doubt. It's a funny kind of Love that doesn't. Won't. Can't',
No no no! For me (this is a Christian forum after all) I know/believe/experience (take your pick) that in Him That love has and will.
I'm no good at philosophy as cheerfulness keeps breaking in!
As to the title topic of this thread, Pope Benedict, in his theology/philosophy days, was rather good on the subject. He was of course an essentialist.
To return to the opening post, I would say that scientific realism (the view that science describes reality, regardless of interpretation) is yet another perspective for thinking about the world, and that it isn't possible to say it's any more true or false than essentialism or existentialism. It is possible to believe that one or other is better, according to some criteria.
I wouldn't disagree. I don't think scientific observations and descriptions of the universe are 100% true and accurate, though I would suggest that they are a lot closer than other methods of doing so.
My only point here is that there is something to be observed, and that something truly exists whether it is in fact observed or not*. That there is a single truth that could in principle be perfectly observed, even if such perfect observation is in practice impossible.
It seems to me there's a fair degree of overlap with themes of consciousness, perception and existence.
When flakes of snow are falling
snow on snow
does each snowflake make a sound?
Certainly, the novel deals with consciousness (conscious cells!), perception and (modes) of existence. And the imagery lends itself beautifully to poetic language.
As it is fiction, Bear has the power to determine whether his snowflakes make sound as we don't hear them, and of what this snow is comprised.
If the snow existed or made sound without me hearing it....ah, well, I have never heard fictitious snow really, unless as part of the realized soundscape developed by the director of a movie or audioplay which existed independently of the snow in the novel.
As for the novel itself, did it exist without my awareness? Earlier readers attest to it having existed as well as library records and collections, digital libraries, metadata. Which I must assume exist if I am to function sanely.
Returning to @ChastMastr's concern over essentialism and existentialism, which exists whether we read it or not
I don’t understand that concept at all. To me this is completely about things being true or false. If things do – if at least some things do – have intrinsic meaning or nature at all, then at least some essentialism is true. If nothing has intrinsic meaning or nature, then existentialism is true.
Thoughts?
How would one demonstrate essentialism to be true? How would one demonstrate intrinsic meaning or nature?
If one relies on theological statements as the foundation, how does one demonstrate that those statements are true to someone who thinks differently or holds a different theology or no theology?
It seems to me there's a fair degree of overlap with themes of consciousness, perception and existence.
When flakes of snow are falling
snow on snow
does each snowflake make a sound?
Certainly, the novel deals with consciousness (conscious cells!), perception and (modes) of existence. And the imagery lends itself beautifully to poetic language.
As it is fiction, Bear has the power to determine whether his snowflakes make sound as we don't hear them, and of what this snow is comprised.
If the snow existed or made sound without me hearing it....ah, well, I have never heard fictitious snow really, unless as part of the realized soundscape developed by the director of a movie or audioplay which existed independently of the snow in the novel.
As for the novel itself, did it exist without my awareness? Earlier readers attest to it having existed as well as library records and collections, digital libraries, metadata. Which I must assume exist if I am to function sanely.
Returning to @ChastMastr's concern over essentialism and existentialism, which exists whether we read it or not
I don’t understand that concept at all. To me this is completely about things being true or false. If things do – if at least some things do – have intrinsic meaning or nature at all, then at least some essentialism is true. If nothing has intrinsic meaning or nature, then existentialism is true.
Thoughts?
How would one demonstrate essentialism to be true? How would one demonstrate intrinsic meaning or nature?
If one relies on theological statements as the foundation, how does one demonstrate that those statements are true to someone who thinks differently or holds a different theology or no theology?
You can't. If we could we'd have a general consensus.
Agree. People start from different premises, e.g., there is only matter, or there is spirit. It seems impossible to argue against them, and it seems subjective anyway. I used to be atheist, but I didn't change by succumbing to arguments, just to experience.
At a guess - the method, priorities and assumptions about how you integrate the different fields.
In their convergence. Geology, paleontology and biology converge on, in, evolution for example. They integrate, come together, by very different routes, at such points. Sorry, are you proposing that the method, priorities and assumptions are subjective in such integration? If so, might I ask for examples? All the sciences integrate into science by scientific method surely?
@Martin54 you are operating a form of essentialism for science by allowing it to validate itself. Anything that is treated as being true in and of itself is given the status of an essential truth.
@ThunderBunk. Mathematics and logic validate science. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is purely mathematical. It happens to map to physical reality perfectly. Pythagoras is in general relativity. The Monte Carlo statistical method describes nuclear fission. Sunflowers and snails have logarithmic spirals. Etc, etc... etc. Ah! But if mathematics validates science, and logic validates mathematics, what validates logic? And of course physical, chemical, biological, psychological phenomena become rapidly more emergently layered above logic.
@Martin54 :My being hungry and tired and conditionally loving can't affect the laws of physics.
Well Martin, maybe that is because there are different realities from empirical ones..or perhaps, Plato knew nothing.
Sure he took it to the nth degree but, out of interest, in your non essentialist scheme, you must deny these things as somehow 'unreal' since they cannot be examined via the scientific method. But
scientism is fundamentally unsatisfying..it has sharp corners that deny our need for cuddles.
And, as someone interposed above, in the realm of 'quanta' you actually lose location of place at some point suggesting (maybe) that what we perceive as physicality is really some kind of simulation created by an 'essential' being who is not part of it. Biblically this is Christ, incarnated as a man but originally demonstrated as I AM in Exodus. I think this is Aquinas' theology?
EE Cummings reflects our state of awareness yet unknowing in his haiku.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow,
glazed wth rainwater,
beside the white chickens.
That I know aren't true. That I have coherent justified true belief aren't true. Or that I can't have coherent justified true belief are true.
I think of the three options, the last one is best, because it doesn't demand the reader accept that you definitively "know" things, or that your own beliefs are "justified" or "true."
I believe, as is likely visible, in essentialism (of at least some kinds), rather than existentialism. But in discussion or debate, even if I were on some absolute level convinced that it was absolute truth, with no chance I could ever be wrong about it, I would still try to say "I believe X" rather than "I know X is true" or "I have coherent justified true belief that X is true."
The three options deconstruct to the same meaning. Knowledge is coherent justified true belief. Knowing is coherent justified true believing.
I know that essentialism is not coherent justified true belief. We can get in to an infinite regress, or do what mathematicians do and sum, wrap it all up, integrate it to infinity. I believe that is more knowing, to say the least, than I believe in. I believe that, I know that, nature, being, does not need unnatural, essential explanations. I don't believe in that. I don't believe in nature, being, not needing unnatural, essential explanations. It doesn't. Except for most believers.
Moving on can be seen to make my point. Previously you could not discuss this. I feel I cannot say more. I feel in the thinnest ice.
I'm genuinely lost here at this point. If this is in reference to issues and such from a few months back that led to difficulties on the Ship (I'm guessing this is what the "thinnest ice" is a reference to), I don't want to make things difficult.
@ChastMastr, my friend, you couldn't make things difficult. I am the author of my own misfortune.
I woke up this morning realising in deep cognitive dissonance what a fool I've been. I feel the need to apologize, too late, in the Styx. So I must.
We are going to disagree about you “knowing” these things. Again, “I believe” really really helps when you were having a disagreement with someone rather than just stamping your foot and saying that you know it. Regardless though, if I am one of the people to whom an apology is being given (in the Styx), I will accept that. And if not, well, I wish you well regardless. Peace.
Oh dear, as I rather hoped we wouldn't, we have strayed into quantum physics territory. Best book I've read on all this is Phillip Ball's 'Beyond Weird'.
As to, 'If Love did reveal itself as the ground of being in any way, there could be no sane, meaningful doubt. It's a funny kind of Love that doesn't. Won't. Can't',
No no no! For me (this is a Christian forum after all) I know/believe/experience (take your pick) that in Him That love has and will.
I'm no good at philosophy as cheerfulness keeps breaking in!
As to the title topic of this thread, Pope Benedict, in his theology/philosophy days, was rather good on the subject. He was of course an essentialist.
I must get out more ....
I’m not a fan of Pope Benedict, but amen regardless.
It seems to me there's a fair degree of overlap with themes of consciousness, perception and existence.
When flakes of snow are falling
snow on snow
does each snowflake make a sound?
Certainly, the novel deals with consciousness (conscious cells!), perception and (modes) of existence. And the imagery lends itself beautifully to poetic language.
As it is fiction, Bear has the power to determine whether his snowflakes make sound as we don't hear them, and of what this snow is comprised.
If the snow existed or made sound without me hearing it....ah, well, I have never heard fictitious snow really, unless as part of the realized soundscape developed by the director of a movie or audioplay which existed independently of the snow in the novel.
As for the novel itself, did it exist without my awareness? Earlier readers attest to it having existed as well as library records and collections, digital libraries, metadata. Which I must assume exist if I am to function sanely.
Returning to @ChastMastr's concern over essentialism and existentialism, which exists whether we read it or not
I don’t understand that concept at all. To me this is completely about things being true or false. If things do – if at least some things do – have intrinsic meaning or nature at all, then at least some essentialism is true. If nothing has intrinsic meaning or nature, then existentialism is true.
Thoughts?
How would one demonstrate essentialism to be true? How would one demonstrate intrinsic meaning or nature?
If one relies on theological statements as the foundation, how does one demonstrate that those statements are true to someone who thinks differently or holds a different theology or no theology?
As some of these might be on the level of first principles, I don’t know how easy or possibly it might be to demonstrate those, any more than morality (one could always say that it’s just what people have taught you, or something to do with brain chemistry, etc.) or even that one is not a brain in a jar experiencing illusions.
What is subjective about consiliently perceiving nature? That nature wants for nothing in explaining itself?
It's all subjective. My car doesn't perceive nature, because it's not a subject.
That is more than I know. We don’t have evidence of it having a biological nature, certainly. But Marie Kondo would thank it for its service, or wish it well as it goes to a new owner, for example. (This would be another thread, of course, but there’s a reason I describe myself as an “Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto.”)
What is subjective about consiliently perceiving nature? That nature wants for nothing in explaining itself?
It's all subjective. My car doesn't perceive nature, because it's not a subject.
That is more than I know. We don’t have evidence of it having a biological nature, certainly. But Marie Kondo would thank it for its service, or wish it well as it goes to a new owner, for example. (This would be another thread, of course, but there’s a reason I describe myself as an “Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto.”)
Well, the hills are alive with the sound of music, so I guess everything is.
What is subjective about consiliently perceiving nature? That nature wants for nothing in explaining itself?
It's all subjective. My car doesn't perceive nature, because it's not a subject.
That is more than I know. We don’t have evidence of it having a biological nature, certainly. But Marie Kondo would thank it for its service, or wish it well as it goes to a new owner, for example. (This would be another thread, of course, but there’s a reason I describe myself as an “Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto.”)
Well, the hills are alive with the sound of music, so I guess everything is.
St. Francis did write about Brother Sun and Sister Moon and such...
I don’t understand that concept at all. To me this is completely about things being true or false.If things do – if at least some things do – have intrinsic meaning or nature at all, then at least some essentialism is true. Ifnothing has intrinsic meaning or nature, then existentialism is true.
Thoughts?
How would one demonstrate essentialism to be true? How would one demonstrate intrinsic meaning or nature?
If one relies on theological statements as the foundation, how does one demonstrate that those statements are true to someone who thinks differently or holds a different theology or no theology?
As some of these might be on the level of first principles, I don’t know how easy or possibly it might be to demonstrate those, any more than morality (one could always say that it’s just what people have taught you, or something to do with brain chemistry, etc.) or even that one is not a brain in a jar experiencing illusions.
How does one determine whether something is on the level of first principles?
Looking over the thread, I notice that you seem to find essentialism true, in contrast to existentialism. If essentialism is at the level of first principles, it seems valuable to understand how one got to that conclusion. Or if one has concluded wrongly.
Morality is cultural and does depend on brain chemistry.
I will continue to operate as if I am not a brain in a jar experiencing illusions as long as I can manage. As I expect you do. We can attempt to share our impressions with each other, if we find we have been wrong.
EE Cummings reflects our state of awareness yet unknowing in his haiku.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow,
glazed wth rainwater,
beside the white chickens.
So much depends, is not a haiku, and it's by William Carlos Williams.
Thank you, @Dafyd. I almost cross-posted with you on this.
Also, thanks for the Hopkins snippet. I have now read two of his poems. I would like to read more.
Plus the books of poetry here that are not by Hopkins.
That I know aren't true. That I have coherent justified true belief aren't true. Or that I can't have coherent justified true belief are true.
I think of the three options, the last one is best, because it doesn't demand the reader accept that you definitively "know" things, or that your own beliefs are "justified" or "true."
I believe, as is likely visible, in essentialism (of at least some kinds), rather than existentialism. But in discussion or debate, even if I were on some absolute level convinced that it was absolute truth, with no chance I could ever be wrong about it, I would still try to say "I believe X" rather than "I know X is true" or "I have coherent justified true belief that X is true."
The three options deconstruct to the same meaning. Knowledge is coherent justified true belief. Knowing is coherent justified true believing.
I know that essentialism is not coherent justified true belief. We can get in to an infinite regress, or do what mathematicians do and sum, wrap it all up, integrate it to infinity. I believe that is more knowing, to say the least, than I believe in. I believe that, I know that, nature, being, does not need unnatural, essential explanations. I don't believe in that. I don't believe in nature, being, not needing unnatural, essential explanations. It doesn't. Except for most believers.
Moving on can be seen to make my point. Previously you could not discuss this. I feel I cannot say more. I feel in the thinnest ice.
I'm genuinely lost here at this point. If this is in reference to issues and such from a few months back that led to difficulties on the Ship (I'm guessing this is what the "thinnest ice" is a reference to), I don't want to make things difficult.
@ChastMastr, my friend, you couldn't make things difficult. I am the author of my own misfortune.
I woke up this morning realising in deep cognitive dissonance what a fool I've been. I feel the need to apologize, too late, in the Styx. So I must.
We are going to disagree about you “knowing” these things. Again, “I believe” really really helps when you were having a disagreement with someone rather than just stamping your foot and saying that you know it. Regardless though, if I am one of the people to whom an apology is being given (in the Styx), I will accept that. And if not, well, I wish you well regardless. Peace.
If you'd care to elaborate how you disagree, that would be brilliant. Otherwise it's just dispositional. Can you explain where my knowing is wrong? Where my knowing isn't knowing? And I'm not stamping my foot. I'm being accurate and honest. I know what I know. And how.
@Martin54 :My being hungry and tired and conditionally loving can't affect the laws of physics.
Well Martin, maybe that is because there are different realities from empirical ones..or perhaps, Plato knew nothing.
Sure he took it to the nth degree but, out of interest, in your non essentialist scheme, you must deny these things as somehow 'unreal' since they cannot be examined via the scientific method. But
scientism is fundamentally unsatisfying..it has sharp corners that deny our need for cuddles.
And, as someone interposed above, in the realm of 'quanta' you actually lose location of place at some point suggesting (maybe) that what we perceive as physicality is really some kind of simulation created by an 'essential' being who is not part of it. Biblically this is Christ, incarnated as a man but originally demonstrated as I AM in Exodus. I think this is Aquinas' theology?
EE Cummings reflects our state of awareness yet unknowing in his haiku.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow,
glazed wth rainwater,
beside the white chickens.
I know that there are different realities of nature forever beyond our ken, the multiverse of 5D mbranes clashing in hyperspace perhaps. Plato no more knew essence, Forms, Ideas than the cat. Because they aren't real. The science I know couldn't possibly deny our need for cuddles, it explains it.
You lose location when you concentrate on velocity and vice versa. I've no idea how that mathematical fact, where those variables can be abstracted, suggests we're shadows of something more substantial, in God the Son's skull.
I don’t understand that concept at all. To me this is completely about things being true or false.If things do – if at least some things do – have intrinsic meaning or nature at all, then at least some essentialism is true. Ifnothing has intrinsic meaning or nature, then existentialism is true.
Thoughts?
How would one demonstrate essentialism to be true? How would one demonstrate intrinsic meaning or nature?
If one relies on theological statements as the foundation, how does one demonstrate that those statements are true to someone who thinks differently or holds a different theology or no theology?
As some of these might be on the level of first principles, I don’t know how easy or possibly it might be to demonstrate those, any more than morality (one could always say that it’s just what people have taught you, or something to do with brain chemistry, etc.) or even that one is not a brain in a jar experiencing illusions.
How does one determine whether something is on the level of first principles?
Looking over the thread, I notice that you seem to find essentialism true, in contrast to existentialism. If essentialism is at the level of first principles, it seems valuable to understand how one got to that conclusion. Or if one has concluded wrongly.
One can try to deduce first principles but... they're first principles. One can always claim they're illusory. One can point to things that seem to suggest that they're real, but it's like logic or Reason itself--I would say that first principles are the things on which everything else depends. I can point to the great testimony of mankind throughout history that takes for granted that things are real, and especially (but not exclusively) Christianity teaching so.
Morality is cultural and does depend on brain chemistry.
I don't mean what some cultures can perceive about, or blind spots they may have regarding, morality--nor what blind spots our brain chemistry might have due to some kind of mental impairment--I mean right and wrong itself, full stop.
That I know aren't true. That I have coherent justified true belief aren't true. Or that I can't have coherent justified true belief are true.
I think of the three options, the last one is best, because it doesn't demand the reader accept that you definitively "know" things, or that your own beliefs are "justified" or "true."
I believe, as is likely visible, in essentialism (of at least some kinds), rather than existentialism. But in discussion or debate, even if I were on some absolute level convinced that it was absolute truth, with no chance I could ever be wrong about it, I would still try to say "I believe X" rather than "I know X is true" or "I have coherent justified true belief that X is true."
The three options deconstruct to the same meaning. Knowledge is coherent justified true belief. Knowing is coherent justified true believing.
I know that essentialism is not coherent justified true belief. We can get in to an infinite regress, or do what mathematicians do and sum, wrap it all up, integrate it to infinity. I believe that is more knowing, to say the least, than I believe in. I believe that, I know that, nature, being, does not need unnatural, essential explanations. I don't believe in that. I don't believe in nature, being, not needing unnatural, essential explanations. It doesn't. Except for most believers.
Moving on can be seen to make my point. Previously you could not discuss this. I feel I cannot say more. I feel in the thinnest ice.
I'm genuinely lost here at this point. If this is in reference to issues and such from a few months back that led to difficulties on the Ship (I'm guessing this is what the "thinnest ice" is a reference to), I don't want to make things difficult.
@ChastMastr, my friend, you couldn't make things difficult. I am the author of my own misfortune.
I woke up this morning realising in deep cognitive dissonance what a fool I've been. I feel the need to apologize, too late, in the Styx. So I must.
We are going to disagree about you “knowing” these things. Again, “I believe” really really helps when you were having a disagreement with someone rather than just stamping your foot and saying that you know it. Regardless though, if I am one of the people to whom an apology is being given (in the Styx), I will accept that. And if not, well, I wish you well regardless. Peace.
If you'd care to elaborate how you disagree, that would be brilliant. Otherwise it's just dispositional. Can you explain where my knowing is wrong? Where my knowing isn't knowing? And I'm not stamping my foot. I'm being accurate and honest. I know what I know. And how.
And of course you're included. Regardless. Peace.
It's not a matter of disposition--I believe X. You believe Y. If I were going to talk with you about what I believe, I will at least try to say "I believe X," not I *KNOW* X. Because it's aggressive and pushy and rude in a discussion when two people disagree. It literally doesn't matter what X and Y are. If I had my mind opened to perceive the great Platonic Forms, in a way that I would not be able to deny no matter how I tried, I would still, just to communicate with someone without pushing them away, try to say "I believe I have genuinely perceived the great Platonic Forms." I know I probably come up short in this effort sometimes. But if Person A and Person B disagree on basically anything at all on which rational people of good will may conceivably disagree, if they want to have any chance of the other person listening to them, then I believe it is best for them to use what are called "I statements." "I believe this." "I think that." "It seems to me this." Even "It appears true to me, as true as anything can be, that." "I would stake my life on this."
... I'm intrigued about differences you see between Kierkegaard and references to existentialism on this thread. (I'm not sure how specific you were being in the comment in your earlier post.)
Of course Kierkegaard is notoriously difficult to understand.
My view is something like this. (But be aware that this is just an imperfect impression based on imperfect understanding of a complex thing.)
K believed that society was being constrained by unwritten rules which meant that individuals in practice had limited autonomy. There were things that could and couldn't be said, mental barriers on the limits of religious thinking, accepted norms that would never be examined. And I think he wanted to strip those right back, call bullshit on them and be much more playful about freeing individuals and their intellects.
I don't think he was saying that there is no ultimate reality and that the only real things were those that one experienced, just that there were more options than most people thought there were and that the religious authorities had no right to impose ideas onto people.
I think other philosophers later went much further than this.
...
Does that make any more sense?
Thanks.
My understanding is that Kierkegaard is called "the father of existentialism" in the sense that he was retrospectively recognised as the first to think in an existentialist way, to address all the themes, not that everything he thought is necessarily existentialism (although much of it is existential, which was a term he used to describe his work). The term "existentialism" wasn't coined until the 1940's, and the first person it was applied to was Sartre, who was the one who got to define it (for better or worse).
Regarding your take on ultimate reality, I think that Kierkegaard was saying that in relation to human existence and meaning, what we experience matters more than objective observation. You could say that it's not really the job of existentialism to get us closer to the underlying nature of objective reality.
In response, Kierkegaard reverses the traditional orientation that privileges objectivity by claiming that, when it comes to the question of existence, one’s own subjective truth is “the highest truth attainable” (1846). This means the abstract truths of philosophical detachment are always subordinate to the concrete truths of the existing individual.
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were two of the first philosophers considered fundamental to the existentialist movement, though neither used the term "existentialism" ... They focused on subjective human experience rather than the objective truths of mathematics and science, which they believed were too detached or observational to truly get at the human experience.
...
Nietzsche's idealized individual invents his own values and creates the very terms they excel under. By contrast, Kierkegaard, opposed to the level of abstraction in Hegel, and not nearly as hostile (actually welcoming) to Christianity as Nietzsche, argues through a pseudonym that the objective certainty of religious truths (specifically Christian) is not only impossible, but even founded on logical paradoxes.
Re: “ I think other philosophers later went much further than this”—absolutely. When I’m talking about essentialism (the idea that there is an intrinsic meaning and essence to things that humans do not create, but discover) vs. existentialism (the idea that there is no intrinsic meaning or essence to things other than what humans make up), it’s the later kind of existentialism I mean, not what you describe here regarding Kierkegaard.
With reference to my first comment, I'm not convinced there's that much of a distinction between Kierkegaard's existentialism and "later" existentialism.
Regarding The Matrix, I wouldn't describe the idea that Neo finds the "genuinely real world" as being existentialist. It appears that Kierkegaard didn't directly use the term "leap of faith", and that his "leap" has more to do with progress in faith requiring an act of will rather than intellectual assent.
Comments
We don't have a basis for disagreement, But you'll disagree : ) You too.
Well, obviously we do. Maybe it’s philosophical first principles, maybe it’s something else, but we have reached different conclusions about what we believe/think/etc. is true, and what we don’t believe/think/etc. is true. And that’s fine—that’s what people do.
The falling tree question can address perception, consciousness and existence. It seems quite pertinent.
It seems to me there's a fair degree of overlap with themes of consciousness, perception and existence.
When flakes of snow are falling
snow on snow
does each snowflake make a sound?
Which of them and the subsequent 'Timberrrrr!' were silent?
Being is independent of beings. There again there have always been infinite beings in every sense. Except supreme of course.
Indeed. But we apparently cannot discuss what the differences in our definitions of philosophical first principles, according to disposition, are.
It's a fairly basic level of intelligence for humans to realise that we can see and perceived things that other people can't (dolphins and chimpanzees can manage it as well). From which the extension of the idea to other people see things that we can't, and there are things that nobody can perceive are obvious next steps.
There are quite a lot of aspects of human life that naturally presuppose the idea that there are things nobody perceives.
And of course there is the spiritual and aesthetic aspect:
These things, these things were here, and but the beholder
Wanting; which two when they once meet
The heart rears wings bold and bolder
And hurls for him, O half hurls earth for him off under his feet.
Hopkins, Hurrahing in Harvest
Even if one agreed that there was something there to be understood, it is an open question how much of what is, is and how much is perception.
And, again, Kierkegaard doesn't look like the image of Existentialism being offered here.
I don't see why me knowing something exists should be a precondition for it actually existing.
It's not an argument with which I agree. Physical and chemical interactions and reactions occur regardless of their being observed or not. Kepler's Star existed for billions of years until it exploded, and it took tens of thousands of years before the light from its explosion was observed here on Earth - it did not somehow spring into being, history and all, in 1604.
I'll agree that without observation something cannot be known to exist. But that's very far indeed from saying that without observation nothing can exist at all.
Oh sure, it can raise all kinds of fun questions about that stuff. But that's all about how we perceive and describe reality, not about reality itself. As Einstein asked Pais, do you really believe that the moon only exists if you look at it?
The position that things only exist in relation to human beings has I think undesirable consequences for the natural world.
One of the reasons for delight in wild animals, or plants even, is just the appreciation of the fact that they're going about their business with no reference to us.
(*) a critically endangered species of porpoise.
Or that Schrödinger's cat is alive and dead? Utter nonsense. As Schrödinger was deliberately demonstrating in his understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation. Although some have even pretended to believe the nonsense, apparently.
Interesting idea. Do you have any references?
I wasn't saying that existentialism is the basis of belief in conspiracies, I was refering to the ideas from the film The Matrix.
Happy to talk about things that I've actually written if you like.
I'm intrigued about differences you see between Kierkegaard and references to existentialism on this thread. (I'm not sure how specific you were being in the comment in your earlier post.)
Or maybe they really do, without pretending anything.
I don’t understand, but moving on…
That I know aren't true. That I have coherent justified true belief aren't true. Or that I can't have coherent justified true belief are true.
Some do I'm sure. And some merely pretended, I'm also sure. Schrödinger surely didn't.
Moving on can be seen to make my point. Previously you could not discuss this. I feel I cannot say more. I feel in the thinnest ice.
I think of the three options, the last one is best, because it doesn't demand the reader accept that you definitively "know" things, or that your own beliefs are "justified" or "true."
I believe, as is likely visible, in essentialism (of at least some kinds), rather than existentialism. But in discussion or debate, even if I were on some absolute level convinced that it was absolute truth, with no chance I could ever be wrong about it, I would still try to say "I believe X" rather than "I know X is true" or "I have coherent justified true belief that X is true."
I'm genuinely lost here at this point. If this is in reference to issues and such from a few months back that led to difficulties on the Ship (I'm guessing this is what the "thinnest ice" is a reference to), I don't want to make things difficult.
Of course Kierkegaard is notoriously difficult to understand.
My view is something like this. (But be aware that this is just an imperfect impression based on imperfect understanding of a complex thing.)
K believed that society was being constrained by unwritten rules which meant that individuals in practice had limited autonomy. There were things that could and couldn't be said, mental barriers on the limits of religious thinking, accepted norms that would never be examined. And I think he wanted to strip those right back, call bullshit on them and be much more playful about freeing individuals and their intellects.
I don't think he was saying that there is no ultimate reality and that the only real things were those that one experienced, just that there were more options than most people thought there were and that the religious authorities had no right to impose ideas onto people.
I think other philosophers later went much further than this.
The Matrix is an interesting Existentialist film, I think. It portrays a reality which has been overlayed with another. And Neo has to make a Kierkegaardian leap of faith into deeper understanding that everything that he experienced was fake and that there was something deeper going on. Which is also a sense shared with conspiracy theorists.
The point there being that Neo doesn't in a sense manipulate reality but learns to be able to manipulate the way that he experiences reality.
Does that make any more sense?
Re: “ I think other philosophers later went much further than this”—absolutely. When I’m talking about essentialism (the idea that there is an intrinsic meaning and essence to things that humans do not create, but discover) vs. existentialism (the idea that there is no intrinsic meaning or essence to things other than what humans make up), it’s the later kind of existentialism I mean, not what you describe here regarding Kierkegaard. Or even technically the Matrix, since Neo does find out about a genuinely real world beyond the illusion of the Matrix (I’ve only seen the first film, myself).
There is definitely a way that at least terminology from the Matrix has become used/misused by conspiracy theorists (red pill, etc.), but that might be better as its own thread.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill
https://tiara.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/lewis_marwick_redpill_ideological_motivations.pdf
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2020/9/6/red-pills-and-dog-whistles-it-is-more-than-just-the-internet
I know that essentialism is not coherent justified true belief. We can get in to an infinite regress, or do what mathematicians do and sum, wrap it all up, integrate it to infinity. I believe that is more knowing, to say the least, than I believe in. I believe that, I know that, nature, being, does not need unnatural, essential explanations. I don't believe in that. I don't believe in nature, being, not needing unnatural, essential explanations. It doesn't. Except for most believers.
@ChastMastr, my friend, you couldn't make things difficult. I am the author of my own misfortune.
I woke up this morning realising in deep cognitive dissonance what a fool I've been. I feel the need to apologize, too late, in the Styx. So I must.
Not my counter. I'm not subject to that fallacy. That's all part of epistemology isn't it? As science is practiced. We know that science is incomplete, approximate, coherent justified truth, dynamically, at all times, as it changes with each datum. I'd drop dead of happiness if science detected Love, or a single six sigma instance of the fingerpost. A miracle that turned Dawkins, Dennett (in his grave), Gervais. If Love did reveal itself as the ground of being in any way, there could be no sane, meaningful doubt. It's a funny kind of Love that doesn't. Won't. Can't.
He was pointing out the inherent absurdities. Which doesn't mean he didn't accept it, just that it was not easily comprehended.
As Feynman explained - if you think you understand Quantum Physics, you don't. One of the critical aspects of the early development was that understanding of the truth and reality of paradox in the universe we experience.
One of the problems with scientific realism emerges when you get to the level of quantum mechanics, in which observation appears to play a role, which is what Einstein and Pais were disagreeing about. The debate continued long after their discussion - see, for example, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/ , which includes some of the history.
A fine distinction. Yes. I'm sure he accepted it, incomprehensible warts and all, as Dick perfectly encapsulated. Who doesn't?
I'm saying it above. The collapse of quantum wave functions by measurement changes nothing.
As to, 'If Love did reveal itself as the ground of being in any way, there could be no sane, meaningful doubt. It's a funny kind of Love that doesn't. Won't. Can't',
No no no! For me (this is a Christian forum after all) I know/believe/experience (take your pick) that in Him That love has and will.
I'm no good at philosophy as cheerfulness keeps breaking in!
As to the title topic of this thread, Pope Benedict, in his theology/philosophy days, was rather good on the subject. He was of course an essentialist.
I must get out more ....
I wouldn't disagree. I don't think scientific observations and descriptions of the universe are 100% true and accurate, though I would suggest that they are a lot closer than other methods of doing so.
My only point here is that there is something to be observed, and that something truly exists whether it is in fact observed or not*. That there is a single truth that could in principle be perfectly observed, even if such perfect observation is in practice impossible.
Certainly, the novel deals with consciousness (conscious cells!), perception and (modes) of existence. And the imagery lends itself beautifully to poetic language.
As it is fiction, Bear has the power to determine whether his snowflakes make sound as we don't hear them, and of what this snow is comprised.
If the snow existed or made sound without me hearing it....ah, well, I have never heard fictitious snow really, unless as part of the realized soundscape developed by the director of a movie or audioplay which existed independently of the snow in the novel.
As for the novel itself, did it exist without my awareness? Earlier readers attest to it having existed as well as library records and collections, digital libraries, metadata. Which I must assume exist if I am to function sanely.
Returning to @ChastMastr's concern over essentialism and existentialism, which exists whether we read it or not
How would one demonstrate essentialism to be true? How would one demonstrate intrinsic meaning or nature?
If one relies on theological statements as the foundation, how does one demonstrate that those statements are true to someone who thinks differently or holds a different theology or no theology?
You can't. If we could we'd have a general consensus.
At a guess - the method, priorities and assumptions about how you integrate the different fields.
It's all subjective. My car doesn't perceive nature, because it's not a subject.
In their convergence. Geology, paleontology and biology converge on, in, evolution for example. They integrate, come together, by very different routes, at such points. Sorry, are you proposing that the method, priorities and assumptions are subjective in such integration? If so, might I ask for examples? All the sciences integrate into science by scientific method surely?
Well Martin, maybe that is because there are different realities from empirical ones..or perhaps, Plato knew nothing.
Sure he took it to the nth degree but, out of interest, in your non essentialist scheme, you must deny these things as somehow 'unreal' since they cannot be examined via the scientific method. But
scientism is fundamentally unsatisfying..it has sharp corners that deny our need for cuddles.
And, as someone interposed above, in the realm of 'quanta' you actually lose location of place at some point suggesting (maybe) that what we perceive as physicality is really some kind of simulation created by an 'essential' being who is not part of it. Biblically this is Christ, incarnated as a man but originally demonstrated as I AM in Exodus. I think this is Aquinas' theology?
EE Cummings reflects our state of awareness yet unknowing in his haiku.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow,
glazed wth rainwater,
beside the white chickens.
We are going to disagree about you “knowing” these things. Again, “I believe” really really helps when you were having a disagreement with someone rather than just stamping your foot and saying that you know it. Regardless though, if I am one of the people to whom an apology is being given (in the Styx), I will accept that. And if not, well, I wish you well regardless. Peace.
I’m not a fan of Pope Benedict, but amen regardless.
As some of these might be on the level of first principles, I don’t know how easy or possibly it might be to demonstrate those, any more than morality (one could always say that it’s just what people have taught you, or something to do with brain chemistry, etc.) or even that one is not a brain in a jar experiencing illusions.
That is more than I know. We don’t have evidence of it having a biological nature, certainly. But Marie Kondo would thank it for its service, or wish it well as it goes to a new owner, for example. (This would be another thread, of course, but there’s a reason I describe myself as an “Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto.”)
Well, the hills are alive with the sound of music, so I guess everything is.
St. Francis did write about Brother Sun and Sister Moon and such...
How does one determine whether something is on the level of first principles?
Looking over the thread, I notice that you seem to find essentialism true, in contrast to existentialism. If essentialism is at the level of first principles, it seems valuable to understand how one got to that conclusion. Or if one has concluded wrongly.
Morality is cultural and does depend on brain chemistry.
I will continue to operate as if I am not a brain in a jar experiencing illusions as long as I can manage. As I expect you do. We can attempt to share our impressions with each other, if we find we have been wrong.
Thank you, @Dafyd. I almost cross-posted with you on this.
Also, thanks for the Hopkins snippet. I have now read two of his poems. I would like to read more.
Plus the books of poetry here that are not by Hopkins.
If you'd care to elaborate how you disagree, that would be brilliant. Otherwise it's just dispositional. Can you explain where my knowing is wrong? Where my knowing isn't knowing? And I'm not stamping my foot. I'm being accurate and honest. I know what I know. And how.
And of course you're included. Regardless. Peace.
I know that there are different realities of nature forever beyond our ken, the multiverse of 5D mbranes clashing in hyperspace perhaps. Plato no more knew essence, Forms, Ideas than the cat. Because they aren't real. The science I know couldn't possibly deny our need for cuddles, it explains it.
You lose location when you concentrate on velocity and vice versa. I've no idea how that mathematical fact, where those variables can be abstracted, suggests we're shadows of something more substantial, in God the Son's skull.
More than 17 syllables in 5, 7, 5 pattern there.
Thanks, I won’t forget that now
Fixed quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
One can try to deduce first principles but... they're first principles. One can always claim they're illusory. One can point to things that seem to suggest that they're real, but it's like logic or Reason itself--I would say that first principles are the things on which everything else depends. I can point to the great testimony of mankind throughout history that takes for granted that things are real, and especially (but not exclusively) Christianity teaching so.
I don't mean what some cultures can perceive about, or blind spots they may have regarding, morality--nor what blind spots our brain chemistry might have due to some kind of mental impairment--I mean right and wrong itself, full stop.
It's not a matter of disposition--I believe X. You believe Y. If I were going to talk with you about what I believe, I will at least try to say "I believe X," not I *KNOW* X. Because it's aggressive and pushy and rude in a discussion when two people disagree. It literally doesn't matter what X and Y are. If I had my mind opened to perceive the great Platonic Forms, in a way that I would not be able to deny no matter how I tried, I would still, just to communicate with someone without pushing them away, try to say "I believe I have genuinely perceived the great Platonic Forms." I know I probably come up short in this effort sometimes. But if Person A and Person B disagree on basically anything at all on which rational people of good will may conceivably disagree, if they want to have any chance of the other person listening to them, then I believe it is best for them to use what are called "I statements." "I believe this." "I think that." "It seems to me this." Even "It appears true to me, as true as anything can be, that." "I would stake my life on this."
My understanding is that Kierkegaard is called "the father of existentialism" in the sense that he was retrospectively recognised as the first to think in an existentialist way, to address all the themes, not that everything he thought is necessarily existentialism (although much of it is existential, which was a term he used to describe his work). The term "existentialism" wasn't coined until the 1940's, and the first person it was applied to was Sartre, who was the one who got to define it (for better or worse).
Regarding your take on ultimate reality, I think that Kierkegaard was saying that in relation to human existence and meaning, what we experience matters more than objective observation. You could say that it's not really the job of existentialism to get us closer to the underlying nature of objective reality.
From Existentialism: Subjective Truth at Stanford: And from Wikipedia on Existentialism
Meanwhile With reference to my first comment, I'm not convinced there's that much of a distinction between Kierkegaard's existentialism and "later" existentialism.
Regarding The Matrix, I wouldn't describe the idea that Neo finds the "genuinely real world" as being existentialist. It appears that Kierkegaard didn't directly use the term "leap of faith", and that his "leap" has more to do with progress in faith requiring an act of will rather than intellectual assent.