Philosophy is Dead

Indeed there is simplicity in your words...one of a kind.

Cicerone, actually I am not saying anything of the sort. Let me first state that both theists and atheists are somewhat in the same boat i.e. they are both grappling with the unproven. The atheist has a further problem in that he has a belief in the unprovable because building physical models which do not include God at the initial state does not preclude the existence of God. Infact the best they can ever achieve is to build a model which does not include God. It is not possible to prove a negative and no matter how successful their physical model might be it will not be philosophically robust enough to prove this negative.

You may have thought that I was arguing for God and its provability because my criticism was apparently of the positions taken by atheists but infact I was only citing that as an illustration of my criticism of Hawking as a dogmatist when he is declaring that philosophy is dead. Sorry for the confusion.

Maybe you have forgotten that you say you have read Piaget's genetic epistemology, which is neither anthropocentric nor involves a concept of "judgement". Other writers have taken these issues further to the extent that "cognition" is merely a synonym for "the general life process". From that view "reality" is a pragmatic social construction in specifically human "observer realms" in which acquired language through which we segment the world, is an essential a priori. Hawking indeed might argue that mathematical models are metalanguages in that respect, each suggesting a different version of "reality". The measure of "thing-ness" is a grey area.

I have always considered a philosopher to be anyone who is prepared to think without a straight jacket subject only to rationality. This can be poets, scientists in fact anyone not just those carrying the label of philosophers.

There is no mind except as a moral form, but brains would not have evolved to the point of conceiving themselves alternately as soul, or mind were change not the only constant in the cosmos... The earth moves, because of gravity the wind moves and the flag, moving with the earth moves with the wind, and the mind which is how the brain conceives of constants compared to change moves too, so it sees only relative change, and not change as a constant... It is knowing apart from ones perception that physical reality exists, and behaves in a regular fashion that is the first judgement of physics, and one that is learned almost at birth...Conservation is not simply learned at a certain stage of life as Piaget suggested, making all reason possible; but is learned at all stages of life... What changes, and what stays the same amid change because only with constants can we measure change and add to knowledge...

When even the earth we stand on that we think is so firm is floating around like a gob of slag in a vat of iron, and all is floating in one galazy among many, constants are difficult to find, but much easier in physics than in morality... The one constant by which we normally judge all is our own lives; but the are pure chaos and havok... People burn through their lives, and it is the life of society or humanity that lives on and is the ultimate judge of the worth of any one life by it own standard...We get our moral forms from society and give them back slightly modified, but that is the cultural economy that has remained unchanged since the dawn of mankind...We cannot change our nature, and for that reason we change our physical forms, and physics from the start has been for that purpose...But physics cut off from morality, which is the primary goal of philosophy: Good and moral lives; Is a positive danger to humanity... You cannot teach those people morals because people cannot be taught morals... People learn morals in a moral environment just as they learn hypocracy from a hypocritical environment... It is easy to say the scientists should find their roots in philosophy and do good...The difficulty is getting our whole society and humanity too, to look for good out side of the immediate, and seek in culture the life of mankind...

Addressing God belief or any other kind of belief can only be justified concerning the meaning in reference to what was addressed...words are not just characters bound together...

Thus the addressing by itself is no justification to form a judgement of any kind...neither in favour or against, once there is no bearing to guide with until its given, and several can be proposed.

But those who find it hard to comprehend this simple fact upon the very nature of language and how it works, hardly can aim to anything at all, but nonsense...such is life !

You're a towel...

"Nirvana", as I understand it, involves dissipation of "self", hence there is no longer a "person" there to experience it. Theists, for example, whose concept of "self" is ontologically dependent on a concept of a separate "god" have no chance of understanding that.

I may not particularly be a follower of Hawking for reasons of his anthropocentricity suggested in the reference I gave you. However, I agree with him when he despairs of so-called "philosophers" who haven't got a clue about the mathematical models he talks about. They are a bit tougher than "poetry" to get your head round !

Even philosopher should seek for rules of the road... It cannot always be a sex toy and lingerie party in the middle of a hocky game... We need constants... It is simply that logic as we are used to using it is ineffetive at understanding morals...

Even considering and granting so, the extent of what he said only makes him a fool out of himself and ads nothing to the cause but prejudice...

Sound is variance in the density of molecules moving through a medium. Ears allow for a range of frequencies to be received and their signals to be processed and interpreted in our brain. However, ears are simply a bit of cellular geometry. Some sounds we feel in our chest cavity because it's harmonic resonance is such that it allows for us to "feel" it. What we feel in our chest, and what we feel in our ears is no different.

My point is that when a tree falls, it most definitely makes sound. Sound exists whether it is processed and interpreted.

I'd agree that if a symphony falls in the forest, and nobody is around, does it make music, is a valid question. I'd say the answer is no to music, but certainly yes to sound.

A
R
T

Well, some theists do have this concept. Its known as 'fana' (submergence) in the Sufi tradition.

Whilst Hawkings may despair at the philosophers lack of mathematical understanding of physical models others by the same token despair at Hawkings attempt to extrapolate his physical models beyond their scope into metaphysics and this is precisely what he has done by dismissing the existence of God.

I have the utmost respect for Hawkings the physicist, having had the privilege to attend his seminars as an under grad and then as a post grad physicist but I believe he is abusing his position by making these non sequitur, unfounded proclamations of personal subjective belief, which discredit not only him but his field of expertise.

No. You don't get it. "Morality" and "judgement" are linguistic epiphenomena of "human observers". In cosmological terms man has only been around for the last millimetre of a whole toilet roll representing the age of the earth, yet his "morality" and "judgements" have hitherto involved him in potentially species destructive activities. Any re-dress of that threat needs to de-construct any a priori (theistic) significance we might attach to those concepts by "scientifically" examining the social macro structures which reify them.

IMO (argued extensively on this forum since 2002) if you are "a believer" (which your posts tend to suggest) then you are your beliefs. This view not only deconstructs your dualistic view of "existence" but it also suggests you will resist anyone who attacks your beliefs because they are attacking your "self integrity".

Whether you agree with this or not, your evaluation of Hawking's beliefs as "unfounded" is a matter of debate, as is your use of the phrase "by the same token". The error, in my opinion, is that theists assume they have a level playing field with respect to debate with atheists. They do not. The burden of "proof" falls entirely on them.

Hi Amer,

I also read the Hawkings' extract in the Times supplement from his new book, and I have to agree that despite disagreeing with the meta-physicists conclusion about God and Philosophy being dead, that doesn't stop me/us from having a tremendous time in following his arguments to reach that conclusion. My only problem now is that I have a number of other books to read as well at the same time. (Is that even possible?) Thanks.

Given any conceptual representation to judge upon the existence of God may fall short should n´t we just opt for the agnostic position ?
What you say is formally true but not necessarily the best answer...

How do you know apart from your perception that physical reality exists?

Opting for an agnostic position isn't as honest as it is presented. We are not agnostic about spaghetti monsters or unicorns. An agnostic world view has never been adhered to. It's always been pick and choose with agnostics.

A
R
T

Actually it is easier to accept that something remains true until proven wrong then the opposite, since you can get a wrong by lack of internal consistency but you can´t get a truth only by it.