How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@anonymously99stwin,

If I only had a brain. I lost it in Kansas.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

…and if you could, explain to me why, if that is what actually is the case….why it is not what IS.

Because your word "actually" is indicative of your attempt at imposing a naive realistic transaction. That word has no status in terms of an ephemeral social agreement about greater paradigmatic coherence.

Huh?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Huh?

Its OK Frank I asked Fresco in a round about way to send the long bus your way instead of the short bus. Drunk

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
Huh?

Its OK Frank I asked Fresco in a round about way to send the long bus your way instead of the short bus.

I always answer posts in order...without reading any that follow the one to which I am responding.

After posting my response, I saw yours and wanted to delete mine....but decided that since it was there...I ought leave it there.

This should be interesting. I once asked "anyone" to help me understand what Fresco was saying...but got no takers.

I hope that you can bridge the talking past each other between Fresco and I.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I hope that you can bridge the talking past each other between Fresco and I.

Me too. I think Fresco is very smart and I have a little time on my hand and I would like to use it to see if I can find a better understand to what fresco is sharing.

I am not making any promises but I do understand how things can seem senseless at times when it comes to devoting time towards things. What can I say? "I like to be punished at times. lol

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Aspiring grandmothers are advised to listen to Rorty on "need".
From this they should gather that Franks need is to maintainhis self integrity by use of naive realistic terms like "actually" and "IS", wheras fresco's need is to attempt to fulfil his self appointed role as "exponent of contemporary philosophy" by pointing to helpful texts which deconstruct naive realism and its assumptions about the word "is". We therefore have a clash of needs and a failure to communicate. But if you accept this " needs paradigm" you are on the way to understanding pragmatism itself.

1 Reply

@fresco,

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresco

What are you doing? fresco.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:

"What can I say? "I like to be punished at times. lol"

anon wrote:
You dirty boy.. Shocked

0 Replies

RL...I hope you do not actually "punish" yourself in this endeavor...but I would like you to pursue it I am sure it will not be an easy project...and I guess the "punish" feature cannot be discarded completely. I'm hoping you can be the conduit that for whatever has to be resolved.

Here are some observations you might consider while setting about your task:

It is obvious that Fresco has a rather low opinion of me...that I am indolent...and that the problem with my not agreeing with his position is (at least partially) the result of my indolence. I see further that he considers what I have to say to be a way of “maintaining my self-integrity.”

Both of those positions seem to me to be absurd…and since I, like you, consider Fresco to be “smart”…it seems uncharacteristically short sighted.

I am, most assuredly not indolent...and my self-integrity and self-regard are intact without a need to resort to tricks...or rationalizations. I am not, as I have noted, the most intelligent person in this forum...but I am far, far from stupid.

My position essentially is that I do not know (what is going on here)…the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

Further…whatever actually is going on…whatever actually is happening…IS what IS.

But Fresco simply dismisses these thoughts as naïve…and as confrontational to the pragmatist perspective.

He apparently insists that “naïve realists” have to be wrong…and whatever the (whatever he calls it) pragmatists say has to be correct.

I assert that I do not know…but that I see no reason to suggest that one absolutely cannot be correct.

Good luck, RL.

I’ll be here to discuss anything you think is worthy (and understandable) of what Fresco proposes. I am not going to become a disciple of any philosopher…and the only way I will discuss this is person to person here in the forum.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

He apparently insists that “naïve realists” have to be wrong

Total drivel !
That statement is the epitome of your failure to have anything meaningful to say because you dogmatically avoid engaging in the literature or even a discussion if not on your own terms. There is no danger of you becoming a disciple of anybody because all you do is wait to pounce with your ridiculous parochial mantra about the possibility of being "right" or "wrong".
Watch my lips.....
The words "right" and "wrong" DO NOT APPLY to philosophical paradigms. There are only degrees of coherence/utility and naive realism is generally considered to be relatively useless compared with other paradigms such as pragmatism, existentialism and social constructivism.
You have apparently not even bothered to read "nail in the coffin 1." in which the analogy with currency is made. The words "right" and "wrong" are not legitimate currency in the philosophical territory of pragmatism.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

if you could, explain to me why, if that is what actually is the case….why it is not what IS.

I think that Me and you may need to spend a little more time understanding Pragmatism so that we can get a glimpse of what fresco is sharing.

The video fresco shared did seem to help some but with my slow intake of information and the Speaker's use of words that I am new to, makes it a bumpy road for me.

It seems that "what is Is" is only relevant to people like you and me who have socially agreed with the language and concept.

There are other concepts that see it useless. Therefor Is may not be what is Is at times.

1 Reply

@fresco,

The more you hype up pragmatism fresco, the more i see why the world has so many problems. It seems like what's 'right' and 'wrong' doesn't factor into many choices people make.

1 Reply

@mikeymojo,

Quote:

It seems like what's 'right' and 'wrong' doesn't factor into many choices people make.

I think think pragmatists see things as being more useful or less useful rather than right or wrong

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
It seems like what's 'right' and 'wrong' doesn't factor into many choices people make.

I think think pragmatists see things as being more useful or less useful rather than right or wrong

I get that to the point of groking it, RL.

What if the pragmatists are completely wong?

Or even partially wrong?

That is my argument with Fresco.

He does not seem to be arguing from a logical position...but rather he seems to be arguing from a position of having already decided what is or is not the case...

...and then finding rationalizations for that position.

In any case...even if the pragmatists are absolutely right on the button...

...then that would be what IS.

There really is no getting away from that...and I suspect Fresco see that...which is why he is allowing himself to fly off the handle the way he is.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
He apparently insists that “naïve realists” have to be wrong

Total drivel !
That statement is the epitome of your failure to have anything meaningful to say because you dogmatically avoid engaging in the literature or even a discussion if not on your own terms. There is no danger of you becoming a disciple of anybody because all you do is wait to pounce with your ridiculous parochial mantra about the possibility of being "right" or "wrong".
Watch my lips.....
The words "right" and "wrong" DO NOT APPLY to philosophical paradigms. There are only degrees of coherence/utility and naive realism is generally considered to be relatively useless compared with other paradigms such as pragmatism, existentialism and social constructivism.
You have apparently not even bothered to read "nail in the coffin 1." in which the analogy with currency is made. The words "right" and "wrong" are not legitimate currency in the philosophical territory of pragmatism.

I have lots "meaningful" to say, Fresco...and I try to say it in a comprehensible way. You seem annoyed by that.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Alright ladies. Settle down now.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

It seems that "what is Is" is only relevant to people like you and me who have socially agreed with the language and concept.

Yes, but that relevance is also context dependent. General "is-ness" tends to be regarded by philosophers as "a layman's view" which has its uses by all of us in most day-to-day transactions. But one of the stated purposes of philosophy is to transcend "the mundane" by examining covert assumptions and thought habits which are often opaquely embedded in the language itself. That transcendent level cannot assume the validity of usual lay terminology, hence movements like "e-prime" cited above.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
It seems like what's 'right' and 'wrong' doesn't factor into many choices people make.

I think think pragmatists see things as being more useful or less useful rather than right or wrong

Exactly my point to my first statement. Everything is valued in usefulness rather than 'right' and 'wrong'. I also think there are more pragmists in the world than people think.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

What if the pragmatists are completely wong?

That would mean they made a useless choice.

Quote:

Or even partially wrong?

That would mean they did not choose the best known answer or the one that would have been most useful to what they where trying to accomplish.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
What if the pragmatists are completely wong?

That would mean they made a useless choice.

Quote:
Or even partially wrong?

That would mean they did not choose the best known answer or the one that would have been most useful to what they where trying to accomplish.

And that would mean...that IS...what IS.

Not trying to be a wise ass, here, RL...just trying to make sense of something that does more than simply seem counter-intuitive.

Allow me to digress for just a few sentences: When I was a sophomore in high school, a science teacher was giving a lesson in which she asserted something I knew to be incorrect. I raised my hand…and when she recognized me, I expressed my concern. She stonewalled…and I, ever the stonewall myself…stonewalled back. She had the upper hand…and I was sent to the principles office. After a full discussion…the principle knew I was correct…but had to back the teacher. He actually told me I was correct, but then made an impressive case for backing off. I did…and kept the information that he had agreed with my correction to myself. I think (I think) this is the first time I’ve talked about it since. Now…back to my germane remarks.

No matter the "right/wrong" or "useful/non-useful"...the bottom line is that WHATEVER happens to be the case…that truly is what IS.

At this point, Fresco is acting the way my teacher did those many years ago (I suspect SHE realized I was correct)…he simply cannot agree to anything I say because the mere thought that I may be on to something that does not comport with what he arbitrarily assumes to be “useful”…is more than he can take. So the very essence of what I am saying with those words…are subject to scorn by him in order not to have to make that concession.

We’ll get into this more, RL. Thanks for helping here.

1 Reply

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know