Pure, Single, Positive Bases of Existence are Absurd

[lightgigantic]

But what do you propose is a viable alternative to empiricism?

All of modern Western science, including psychology, is in some way based in empiricism.

Take your pick.
Practically noone qualifies their philosophical outlook or critiques others in terms of chemicals ("Serotonin and the Existentialist Position" by DR. I. Ayam Krackerz").

Philosophy, by its very nature is metaphysics, a subject strictly taboo in reductionism et al.

 

[wynn]

May I again suggest understanding through experience (not necessarily sensory experience)? This goes against the linearity and objectivity that is inherent in a society built around a phonetic alphabet (and the correlative stress on the sense of sight), but there is much to be realized that cannot be accurately perceived from words on paper. Is this a good reason to dismiss such realizations? What if such realizations are within the reach of everybody?

I refer you back to my reply to you in post 56.

While I do think that personal realization is a necessity, I also think that meaningful realization is only possible in a meaningful social context.

Marshall McLuhan had something to say about it (emphasis mine):

McLuhan was a Catholic. As such, he had a fundamental philosophical system that he, as a person, could refer to and find his grounding in.
As such, he could engage in theorizing about the media and communication without (serious) threat to himself in any way.

But people who do not have a fundamental philosophical system that they, as persons, could refer to and find their grounding in, can be very vulnerable to various theories.

McLuhan could theorize about communication, knowing that at the end of the day, he could sleep peacefully in his bed, feeling secure in his belief in God.

But to engage in theorizing about things without such fundamental security can give one many sleepless nights, at least that, and the effects of those sleepless night are not to be underestimated.

 

[wynn]

Take your pick.
Practically noone qualifies their philosophical outlook or critiques others in terms of chemicals ("Serotonin and the Existentialist Position" by DR. I. Ayam Krackerz").

Surely you've met people like Michael or BillyT here?

Go, for example, here for the newest updates - these are blogs with references to new studies: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/index
The majority of the psycholgists there argue from a chemical basis for everything, from depression to religion.

Philosophy, by its very nature is metaphysics, a subject strictly taboo in reductionism et al.

Not that this helps philosophy to not be contextualized in terms of chemistry.

 

[Sarkus]

then I guess we can turf empiricism/reductionist view in the bin from the outset since hardly anyone approaches the problems of philosophical outlooks or validates their own or critiques that of others in terms of atoms, chemicals, compounds and such.

Why do you associate empiricism with "atoms, chemicals, compounds and such" rather than with what it actually is?

Nearly all philosophical outlooks are validated and critiqued through empiricism. How else do you suggest that they are validated, or critiqued, at least if they are to have any worth as an outlook? :shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Why do you associate empiricism with "atoms, chemicals, compounds and such" rather than with what it actually is?

and what, pray tell, happens when the question of evidence comes up for the empiricist?

Nearly all philosophical outlooks are validated and critiqued through empiricism.

Nonsense
Nearly all philosophical outlooks are validated through some system of rationalism

How else do you suggest that they are validated, or critiqued, at least if they are to have any worth as an outlook? :shrug:

through method - how else?

Certainly explains why the philosophy of tape measures are not applicable to the philosophy of thermometers, no?

 

[lightgigantic]

Surely you've met people like Michael or BillyT here?

Go, for example, here for the newest updates - these are blogs with references to new studies: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/index
The majority of the psycholgists there argue from a chemical basis for everything, from depression to religion.

they are not making empirical claims since there is no direct experience of these hair-brained theories they advocate.

IOW if one is advocating a particular method, it behooves one to utilize it to lend credibility to whatever claims one is making (as opposed to saying "well we haven't got the method worked out yet even though it is a credible claim")

 

[wynn]

they are not making empirical claims since there is no direct experience of these hair-brained theories they advocate.

Those theories might have been produced by no more brains than hares have them, but they are nonetheless the standard for what passes for "empirical" these days.

(And this is in the field of psychology, having an enormous effect on how society works (e.g. they change school curricula about every five years to keep up with the newest trends in psychology)!)


(Modern) theories is psychology exemplify a common problem, though:
namely, how there first needs to be a theory, a set of concepts and propositions, before we can go out and observe and test phenomena.

This theory, these concepts and propositions are apriori, they are not subject to empirical scrutiny and cannot be.

 

[Sarkus]

and what, pray tell, happens when the question of evidence comes up for the empiricist?

If this question is in any way relevant to your strawman of equating empiricism with reductionism, you'll have to explain it.

Nonsense
Nearly all philosophical outlooks are validated through some system of rationalism

Which in turn either requires empiricism for validation, or is based upon a foundation of empirical knowledge. :shrug:
Care to suggest something known that is not either?

through method - how else?

And you validate that this "method" works... how, exactly?

Certainly explains why the philosophy of tape measures are not applicable to the philosophy of thermometers, no?

Now you think inanimate objects have philosophies??
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

If this question is in any way relevant to your strawman of equating empiricism with reductionism, you'll have to explain it.

only if you can talk about pursuing empiricism while avoiding the question of what constitutes evidence (which would be a first for you since you are probably one of the people who hype about it every time the mere mention of the word god comes up)

Which in turn either requires empiricism for validation, or is based upon a foundation of empirical knowledge. :shrug:
Care to suggest something known that is not either?

errrr ... algebra, idealism, constructivism, rationalism ... infact I would dare to say that even you engage in everyday activities that don't grant sense data a privileged status for a wide spread of things.

And you validate that this "method" works... how, exactly?

through the premises

I mean can you discuss a perfect triangle or circle even though it is technically impossible to indicate one?

Now you think inanimate objects have philosophies??
:shrug:

Only if you look at a tape measure every time you want to know how hot it is

 

[lightgigantic]

Those theories might have been produced by no more brains than hares have them, but they are nonetheless the standard for what passes for "empirical" these days.

(And this is in the field of psychology, having an enormous effect on how society works (e.g. they change school curricula about every five years to keep up with the newest trends in psychology)!)


(Modern) theories is psychology exemplify a common problem, though:
namely, how there first needs to be a theory, a set of concepts and propositions, before we can go out and observe and test phenomena.

This theory, these concepts and propositions are apriori, they are not subject to empirical scrutiny and cannot be.

recognizing the weak empirical basis for disciplines like psychology they are sometimes termed "soft" sciences (as opposed to the "hard" sciences of standard physics etc)

 

[wynn]

Why do you associate empiricism with "atoms, chemicals, compounds and such" rather than with what it actually is?

Nearly all philosophical outlooks are validated and critiqued through empiricism. How else do you suggest that they are validated, or critiqued, at least if they are to have any worth as an outlook?

Exactly.

Nearly all philosophical outlooks are validated and critiqued through empiricism.

Nonsense
Nearly all philosophical outlooks are validated through some system of rationalism

But this rationalism is still based in or related to some kind of empiricism/experientialism; there cannot be one without the other.

I will argue that the traditional divide between empiricism and rationalism is ill-founded, superficial.

 

[wynn]

recognizing the weak empirical basis for disciplines like psychology they are sometimes termed "soft" sciences (as opposed to the "hard" sciences of standard physics etc)

Strictly speaking, all science is "soft."
The problem is simply most obvious with disciplines like psychology or sociology.
But physics or chemistry are facing the same problem.


To quote Quine:
/.../
The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections -- the logical laws being in turn simply certain further statements of the system, certain further elements of the field. Having re-evaluated one statement we must re-evaluate some others, whether they be statements logically connected with the first or whether they be the statements of logical connections themselves. But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole.
/.../


I see no reason to think that the same wouldn't apply to religion.

You argue against empiricism; I am pointing out that we are inescapably bound to it - and I mean here empiricism in the broadest sense, including personal experience.

How can we possibly pursue a philosophy, a metaphysics, but completely divorce it from all empiry/experience?

 

[wynn]

errrr ... algebra, idealism, constructivism, rationalism ... infact I would dare to say that even you engage in everyday activities that don't grant sense data a privileged status for a wide spread of things.

As high up in the mental clouds as we might get, at some point, our philosophical reasoning has to have some correspondence with our experience, for either to be meaningful to us.

The relationship seems to be reciprocal or mutually dependent:
we cannot independently of everything else define what constitutes evidence,
but nor can we construct philosophical theories without some evidence which we take for granted.

 

[lightgigantic]

Strictly speaking, all science is "soft."
The problem is simply most obvious with disciplines like psychology or sociology.
But physics or chemistry are facing the same problem.

a distinction between the hard and soft sciences is that hard science can quantify units in a relatively neutral terms (eg cm's, atoms etc) ... which in turn makes work with control groups and the like more effective

To quote Quine:
/.../
The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections -- the logical laws being in turn simply certain further statements of the system, certain further elements of the field. Having re-evaluated one statement we must re-evaluate some others, whether they be statements logically connected with the first or whether they be the statements of logical connections themselves. But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole.
/.../

needless to say, this is the sort of constructivist dialogue that makes empiricists roll their eyes

I see no reason to think that the same wouldn't apply to religion.

I think knowledge in religion is more innate based - you know with talk of constitutional positions covered over by ignorance in the pursuit of material desire etc

You argue against empiricism;

actually I am arguing that empircism is validated within the confines of certain limitations which in turn define where it is and isn't workable - IOW the whole notion that empiricism (that is assigning sense data the most privileged position) as the topmost means for validating a claim effectively curtails knowledge

I am pointing out that we are inescapably bound to it - and I mean here empiricism in the broadest sense, including personal experience.

If that was the case we wouldn't waste our time going to doctor's and other professionals who may have an opinion that is completely opposite to our assessment.

How can we possibly pursue a philosophy, a metaphysics, but completely divorce it from all empiry/experience?

By looking at the method.

For instance understanding the methods of a plumber and the methods of a doctor enable us to seek the right professional for the right problem ... even though a plumber may have particular opinions about medicine and vice versa

 

[Sarkus]

By looking at the method.

For instance understanding the methods of a plumber and the methods of a doctor enable us to seek the right professional for the right problem ... even though a plumber may have particular opinions about medicine and vice versa

And how do you propose to "understand the methods"?

 

[wynn]

a distinction between the hard and soft sciences is that hard science can quantify units in a relatively neutral terms (eg cm's, atoms etc) ... which in turn makes work with control groups and the like more effective

But the soft sciences and religion are doing the same thing - except they do it with things like justice, love, anger, envy, lust etc. etc.
They tend to talk about these things as if they were as measurable as length or temperature.

I think knowledge in religion is more innate based - you know with talk of constitutional positions covered over by ignorance in the pursuit of material desire etc

I don't understand. What do you mean by "innate based"?


It's not clear how the approach of religionists is any different than the approach of psychologists or sociologists:
Both will make claims formulated as "When you think/feel/say/do X, this means that you are/have Y" whereby they are the ones to determine when someone has X, not the person themselves.

All kinds of people are telling us "who we really are" and what our thoughts and feelings "really mean."

Conceptually, this is about ourselves (since there is all that talk about the concept of "who we really are"), yet in practice, it is about accepting someone else's claims about one's privacy, not about introspection and self-reflection.

actually I am arguing that empircism is validated within the confines of certain limitations which in turn define where it is and isn't workable - IOW the whole notion that empiricism (that is assigning sense data the most privileged position) as the topmost means for validating a claim effectively curtails knowledge

What could possibly be higher than sense data?

I am pointing out that we are inescapably bound to it - and I mean here empiricism in the broadest sense, including personal experience.

If that was the case we wouldn't waste our time going to doctor's and other professionals who may have an opinion that is completely opposite to our assessment.

We still assess the input of those professionals by turning to our experience.
For example, we have some idea whether a medication we've been given is working or not.

How can we possibly pursue a philosophy, a metaphysics, but completely divorce it from all empiry/experience?

By looking at the method.

For instance understanding the methods of a plumber and the methods of a doctor enable us to seek the right professional for the right problem ... even though a plumber may have particular opinions about medicine and vice versa

Like Sarkus asked: And how do you propose to "understand the methods"?


What do you think are the fundamentals, the constants that a person can work with?
What are the constants based on which one can assess variables?

 

[lightgigantic]

And how do you propose to "understand the methods"?

Aren't you asking the same question?

“
You : And you validate that this "method" works... how, exactly?
”
Me - through the premises - I mean can you discuss a perfect triangle or circle even though it is technically impossible to indicate one?

 

[lightgigantic]

But the soft sciences and religion are doing the same thing - except they do it with things like justice, love, anger, envy, lust etc. etc.
They tend to talk about these things as if they were as measurable as length or temperature.

Not really since empiricism (attempts to) take the question of the seer out of the the problem

I don't understand. What do you mean by "innate based"?

means that we innately have the knowledge but it is currently in a covered state

It's not clear how the approach of religionists is any different than the approach of psychologists or sociologists:
Both will make claims formulated as "When you think/feel/say/do X, this means that you are/have Y" whereby they are the ones to determine when someone has X, not the person themselves.


All kinds of people are telling us "who we really are" and what our thoughts and feelings "really mean."

its not so much that the approach (to knowledge based claims) is similar but the notion of existing in a superior state (whether it be better health or liberation from nescience) is similar.

Conceptually, this is about ourselves (since there is all that talk about the concept of "who we really are"), yet in practice, it is about accepting someone else's claims about one's privacy, not about introspection and self-reflection.

if its all about an artificial imposition then one tends to deviate from from the innate basis - there are even descriptions of the pitfalls of falling short of spontaneous bhakti etc

What could possibly be higher than sense data?

the context it operates in

We still assess the input of those professionals by turning to our experience.
For example, we have some idea whether a medication we've been given is working or not.

yet if we still don't go solely and wholly by such notions

Like Sarkus asked: And how do you propose to "understand the methods"?

to which I replied - the premises

What do you think are the fundamentals, the constants that a person can work with?
What are the constants based on which one can assess variables?

I am not sure how to answer that - I mean I am pretty sure I can find holes in whatever constants you would care to offer in regards to what a person can work with in order to assess the variables from doctors or plumbers.

I think it all depends on how much one really wants something and how much one is prepared to sacrifice for it.

For instance if one really wants to get some plumbing fixed but really doesn't want to pay for it they run the risk of getting a dodgy job done.

Along similar lines, if one really wants to make spiritual advancement but abhors the concept of being taught anything (ie lacks humility) they will probably just carry around the knowledge of ten tons of spiritual texts like a donkey with a load of washing
:shrug:

 

[Sarkus]

Aren't you asking the same question?

Not really... unless you're equating "validate" with "understand"?

As to your answer... how do you understand or validate the premises?

 

[wynn]

But the soft sciences and religion are doing the same thing - except they do it with things like justice, love, anger, envy, lust etc. etc.
They tend to talk about these things as if they were as measurable as length or temperature.

Not really since empiricism (attempts to) take the question of the seer out of the the problem

So do psychology and religion.

I yet have to meet a religionist who wouldn't talk as if everything he or she says is the objective truth.

The practical norm for religionists is to make claims in the objective form, as if they wouldn't be made from an individual person's perspective.

means that we innately have the knowledge but it is currently in a covered state

All kinds of people are telling us what that "innate knowledge" supposedly is.
It comes down to having faith in those people, not in our own experiences.

It's not clear how the approach of religionists is any different than the approach of psychologists or sociologists:
Both will make claims formulated as "When you think/feel/say/do X, this means that you are/have Y" whereby they are the ones to determine when someone has X, not the person themselves.

All kinds of people are telling us "who we really are" and what our thoughts and feelings "really mean."

its not so much that the approach (to knowledge based claims) is similar but the notion of existing in a superior state (whether it be better health or liberation from nescience) is similar.

In some abstract, conceptual, nominal sense this is so.
But not in the practical sense, since religion, as well as psychology, also define what "better (mental) health" or "liberation from nescience" are - one doesn't have any actual, personal knowledge of either.

if its all about an artificial imposition then one tends to deviate from from the innate basis

That's merely a truism.

Of course, the Catholics have different ideas of what "an artificial imposition" and "innate basis" are than Muslims, and they yet different ones than Hindus and so on.

In the end, given all this variety, one comes away with the impression that our "innate basis" is merely a placeholder, a general ability, a potential, but not an actual set of qualities and skills ...

What could possibly be higher than sense data?

the context it operates in

That context is still something that is sensed - ie. just more sense data.

I am not sure how to answer that - I mean I am pretty sure I can find holes in whatever constants you would care to offer in regards to what a person can work with in order to assess the variables from doctors or plumbers.

Surely people can find holes in theistic claims too.

I think it all depends on how much one really wants something and how much one is prepared to sacrifice for it.

For instance if one really wants to get some plumbing fixed but really doesn't want to pay for it they run the risk of getting a dodgy job done.

Along similar lines, if one really wants to make spiritual advancement but abhors the concept of being taught anything (ie lacks humility) they will probably just carry around the knowledge of ten tons of spiritual texts like a donkey with a load of washing

You call it "lack of humility," I call it "refusal to be brainwashed" and "refusal to be fucked in the head."


With plumbing, one at least has some idea of what needs to be done and who could do it.
This is not the case with spiritual matters.