Critical thinking on the existence of God

@Tuna,

On 'matters of semantics' my use of the word 'truth', as already stated implies 'agreement as to what works'. Those like me whose education had included the psychology of Piaget with its emphasis on changes of state of 'the observer', or the 'finite state machine' analogy in Chomsky's linguistics, would naturally have 'bells ringing' on reading Maturana's autopoiesis (as did Von Glasersfeld in the cited paper). That 'bell ringing' equates to 'gut reaction' because I find myself in agreement with a form of discourse about 'cognition' which originated with Kant's highlighting of phenomena relative to noumena. That is for me the seminal epistemological issue, and is the one that underpins Heidegger's being, Wiittgenstein's departure from logical positivism with his 'language games', and the 'embodied cognition' movement which opposes mechanistic 'neuroscience'.

Obviously, without the same educational background with respect to 'cognition' we are involved with differing contexts, but that very issue of context serves to underscore some of the points I am trying to make. (That issue of context I now find being a central issue for Derrida and his own concerns with 'matters of semantics').

I hope that helps explain where I am coming from.

My following up on your Heidegger reference is slightly delayed but be aware that if it is a later work of his I am aware of the view that he spent much of his later years trying to 'get back into the fold' after his sojourn with Nazism.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

On 'matters of semantics' my use of the word 'truth', as already stated implies 'agreement as to what works'. Those like me whose education had included the psychology of Piaget with its emphasis on changes of state of 'the observer', or the 'finite state machine' analogy in Chomsky's linguistics, would naturally have 'bells ringing' on reading Maturana's autopoiesis (as did Von Glasersfeld in the cited paper). That 'bell ringing' equates to 'gut reaction' because I find myself in agreement with a form of discourse about 'cognition' which originated with Kant's highlighting of phenomena relative to noumena. That is for me the seminal epistemological issue, and is the one that underpins Heidegger's being, Wiittgenstein's departure from logical positivism with his 'language games', and the 'embodied cognition' movement which opposes mechanistic 'neuroscience'.

It's not clear to me what you're saying here. The word we were stumbling over was "transcendent." If your perspective has roots in Kant, why do you reject the use of that word?

Could you explain how Wittgenstein's "language games" is a departure from logical positivism? It's more the basis of it, isn't it? Logical positivists affirmed that language use can be entirely understood in terms of convention. I say "affirmed" (past tense). Logical positivism is understood to have crashed and burned starting with Quine.

I'm familiar with the idea of an organism (vs mechanism) by way of Robert Rosen. I'm not sure how we can see that outlook as having epistemological implications. I think it starts with a neo-Kantian framework to legitimize the concept of purpose. In other words, it's trying to address a philosophical problem resulting from the dominance of physics in science. That dominance means that contemporary biologists are stuck with utilizing the concept of purpose while simultaneously denying that it actually exists.

Obviously, in exploring fundamental issues of truth and meaning, we don't have to be burdened by problems in the philosophy of science any more than we are by politics or grocery shopping.

fresco wrote:

My following up on your Heidegger reference is slightly delayed but be aware that if it is a later work of his I am aware of the view that he spent much of his later years trying to 'get back into the fold' after his sojourn with Nazism.

Cool.

2 Replies

@Tuna,

Quote:

Obviously, in exploring fundamental issues of truth and meaning, we don't have to be burdened by problems in the philosophy of science any more than we are by politics or grocery shopping.

No, THAT was cool. (cooler than observations on flings with Nazis that is)

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Hi,
I find
The operator aspect in your God concept, very confusing.

There are millions of various operators surrounding us.
Are you referring to the human type?

The operator type, has a profound impact on the potential relationships, between it, and the humans subjected to its operations.

Thank you very much.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

I use the word transcendent in the sense that Kant and those that followed up his phenomenology were adopting that metaphysical observation position sometimes called 'a Gods eye view'. That is to say they were trying to stand apart from the interaction of separate 'subjects' and 'objects' and evoke the essence of a holistic universe. Those attempts are of course problematic since they are ultimately stuck with a language which embodies the naive realism of dichotomous subjects and objects....hence the move to neologisms....and hence the turn (Die Kehre) of philosophers away from epistemological concerns to linguistic ones. Such a trend is epitomized by Heidegger ("Language speaks the Man") and by Wittgenstein's 'language games' in which so-called 'philosophical problems' can often be dissipated by observing that philosophers try to use language outside its everyday usage("Language on Holiday"). Logical positivism departs from the latter since its tenet of 'logical verifiability' cannot be equated to contextual usage. Nor does its reference to stand alone 'atomic assertions' make sense from the social perspective in which 'language games' operate. That perspective in scientific communities equates to Kuhn's 'paradigms (Structure of Scientific Revolutions) in which 'conventions evolve and supersede each other. What such developments in philosophy of science have done to to question the lay notion of 'ultimate truth' which is important for 'believers' on this particular thread (rendering Leadfoot's opinion of 'coolness' somewhat inevitable from a believer)

As an aside, W's departure from his earlier Tractatus (Russell friendly) was apparently influenced by his reading of Goethe's color theory in which contrary to Newton, 'black' and 'white' were 'colors' as per everyday parlance.
W's subsequent writings on the subject are considered to be obscure, but they were sufficient to provide the (holistic) embodied cognitionists with the basis to consider color perception as a microcosm for perceptual and cognitive studies. As a point of interest, the later linguistically concerned W dismissed such issues as Russell's Paradox as an aberrant language game.

3 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I use the word transcendent in the sense that Kant and those that followed up his phenomenology were adopting that metaphysical observation position sometimes called 'a Gods eye view'. That is to say they were trying to stand apart from the interaction of separate 'subjects' and 'objects' and evoke the essence of a holistic universe.

That holistic vision arises from recognition of the interdependence of subject and object. Separation is negation of negation per Hegel.

Heidegger's essay On the Work of Art contains one of the clearest expositions of that interdependence that I know of. But the idea is ancient. It does not originate with Kant. And the path does indeed lead to the conclusion that truth is transcendent. Language is the domain of metaphors.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

From the little I know of The history of German Idealism, you are probably right about Hegel's interpretation of Kant. As for holism, it is of course the basis of ancient 'Eastern thinking' which no doubt had its influence on some Greek thinkers like Plato. Interesting those ancient roots are still apparent in the work of the recent movements in embedded cognition.(Varela and Rosch at Berkeley both with Buddhist connections. Kant is not independently seminal, but he is often cited as a starting point for the development of that term'phenomenology'.

As for your comments on 'truth' and 'metaphor' I am not sure how helpful such 'one liners' may be in understanding our cognitive processes except perhaps for labelling philosophical discourse per se as recreational or therapeutic . I am taking a Rorty line here in which Philosophy has nothing to say about epistemology or ontology that psychology or the sciences cannot do better.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

As for holism, it is of course the basis of ancient 'Eastern thinking' which no doubt had its influence on some Greek thinkers like Plato.

Maybe. If by east you mean China, probably not. There wasn't much of a Chinese presence on the Silk Road. If you mean India, remember that India and Greece are branches of the same cultural tree. We speculate about what was transmitted vs what was inherited. We don't have a Way-Back Machine, though.

fresco wrote:

I am taking a Rorty line here in which Philosophy has nothing to say about epistemology or ontology that psychology or the sciences cannot do better.

You can't make calzones without bread flour. Get off your butt and go shopping, Tuna.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Okay. Having scanned references to Heidegger's AOW together with direct quotations the only interest for me is his analysis of 'thing' and its references to dependence. As far as I am concerned its focal application to works of art amounts to the sort of waffle beloved of all art critics. This waffle is perhaps underscored by the fact that Van Gogh's painting of shoes was more likely to be of his own shoes than any hypothetical 'farmer' figuring in H's aesthetic analysis. I'm afraid much of 'art appreciation' for me is equivalent to descriptions of 'the Emperor's New Clothes' . So call me a philistine if you like but I think this enterprise of H detracts from his philosophical significance rather than enhances it.

A much more digestible account of dynamic interdependency can be found in Piaget's description of assimilation-accommodation. i.e Observer in state1 perceives World state1 causing Observer to shift to state2 revealing World in state2 ....and so on.

1 Reply

@fresco,

OK. Nice talkin' to ya.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

...hence the move to neologisms....and hence the turn (Die Kehre) of philosophers away from epistemological concerns to linguistic ones. Such a trend is epitomized by Heidegger ("Language speaks the Man")...

Ya see, Tuna? That's the kinda **** ya git from a damn solipsist, eh? Fresky thinks language is God. The fool actually thinks that language enables us to think. In the beginning was the WORD.

Linguistic analytic "philosophy" bites the big; huffs the huge one, chews the chubby one; puffs the pudgy one; eats the enormous one; gormandizes the gigantic one; masticates the massive one; slurps the supersized one; licks the large one; ingests the immense one; roundmouths the rotund one: and all the rest of that there, eh?

Just what ya would expect from a damn wack-ass solipsist, sho nuff.

1 Reply

@layman,

I will admit to being unclear what fresco thinks. Definite lack of clarity on the scene.

So what would you put forward as something worth reading in a philosophical vein?

Dammit, Layman. Throw me a bone here. The troops are counting on you. Professor Longhair and the entire state of Louisiana are counting on you.

3 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

....hence the move to neologisms....

When I resort to neologisms it is because I can't find enough ambidextrous solecisms to completely befuddle my audience.

And as I have said before. "It's never to late to obfuscate."

1 Reply

@neologist,

Obfuscation is just something that's attached to philosophy. Intellectuals feel vulnerable because they aren't generally equipped to deal with physical force. They resort to bullshit as a smoke screen. That's my meta-philosophy, anyway.

What's your philosophy neologist? How did you get interested in it?

2 Replies

@Tuna,

Great tune from da Profezza, there, eh, Tuna!? Bein a Nawlins boy, and all, I figure he's singin Lloyd Price's (another Nawlins boy) Lawdy, Miss Clawdy in mardi gras Injun tribe lingo.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Quote:

Obfuscation is just something that's attached to philosophy.

It takes a certain "talent" to string together all kinda hi-falutin words all for to say no kinda nuthin, eh?

Quote:

“Do not accustom yourself to use big words for little matters.” (Samuel Johnson)

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

@Susmariosep: Getting here late, but find this of interest. I believe Tuna has a point, as I too see a contradiction there, though not sure if it is the same as what Tuna sees. What I see is that if the universe is the sum total of existence, then that would have to include the cause as well, as being part of existence, you saying also that the cause is also the sustainer of the universe and therefore still existing. So what you say is proof seems to be saying that the universe is God, both cause and universe being a part of all that exists, and logically that would imply that God is creator of God. Many would accept that and claim it to be self evident. We have no way of determining that, that I can see. And so your "proof" seems to break down without more input. Btw. I am not an athiest.

0 Replies

@layman,

As always in the Deep South, if you don't like what the Big Chief say, you just jacamo fina ne. I'm not Cajun, so I don't know what that means.

Lloyd Price? Oh no you din'

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

It takes a certain "talent" to string together all kinda hi-falutin words all for to say no kinda nuthin, eh?

Thank you.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

Quote:

,if you don't like what the Big Chief say, you just jacamo fina ne

And if he he ax you, was I runnin?
Ya can tell him I was flyin, boy,
Ya can tell him I was flyin.

0 Replies

Critical thinking on the existence of God

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know