Philosophers that interest you, and why (Jazzfanz Philosophy Thread)

[Siro]

Please elaborate.

It is hard to elaborate because I'm not sure I understand it. There is a tendency for some Christians to associate humbleness with simplicity. Like Babe using the word "sophistry" to describe the work of Marx. That's a Platonic concept that stems from Plato's impulse to characterize certain philosophies as an attempt to muck up simple truths by complicating the meaning of their concepts (Plato is the father of modern religion). It is probably part of why so many Christians express hostility toward the "intellectual elites".

 

[Siro]

Can you give a quick summary for those of us who don't have the time?

It is too complex to be given justice in a quick summary. Half of the book is an inductivist epistemological argument about the nature of knowledge, and the relationship between knowledge and explanation. Deutsche basically argues that:

1- Knowledge begins with theory, observations typically follow. This is the opposite of mainstream scientific thought which generally considers observations the basis of a theory. Deutsche argues that observation have little meaning without a theory that gives the observer the context to understand, not only what he's observing, but also the fact that he's observing anything at all.

2- These theories do not merely give a model for manipulating and predicting the observations, but a correct description of the nature of reality.

3- Given competing theories, susceptibility to falsification, fit with observations, among other tools of logic, separate good explanations from bad ones.

4- The understanding of information is not a matter of computational processing, but a grander phenomenon based on paradigm building through pattern recognition and cognitive hierarchies build upon unpredictable and diverse response to stimuli . Humans possess the processes that allow understanding. Humans can thus understand anything that can possibly exist.

The other half is an ontological argument about the best possible explanation for what we see. This is a bit too sciency to explain, but Deutsche argues for a infinite iteration of alternate histories as the nature of reality. And he explains our existence through a version of the Anthropic Principle.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

Could you please elaborate on why you think science agrees more closely to Buddhism? Also I've always thought of Buddhism as more "Philosophy" than "Religion". What's attracted you to Buddhism?

Also re your comment here:

Science is now starting to discover the fact that the universe had a beginning - the Big Bang theory is now widely believed to have happened - evidenced by the cosmic background radiation, the number of quarsars drop off for redshifts, galaxies moving away from each other, etc, etc.

Hmm. Well, that's a lot to answer, but I'll see what I can do.

I've always thought of Buddhism as more "Philosophy" than "Religion".

I'll start with this. Defining terms early on is important in this sort of discussion, and "religion" has a lot of different definitions. A lot of people think you need "supernaturalism" in order to count as a religion. I dislike this sort of definition because 1) "supernaturalism" is usually code for "wrong," and because anything that is true and actually exists is "natural" by definition. That said, I do find most elements that are considered "supernaturalistic" to indeed be silly and wrong. For instance, I'm quite certain there's no God who can intervene in the world directly, perform miracles, that kind of thing. I don't agree with some Buddhist scriptures that claim enlightened ones get magic powers like levitation.

For me what really defines religion is that it identifies what Paul Tillich would call our "Ultimate Concern." Empirical science cannot tell us anything about life purpose. Religion -- or the religious element in the human psyche, if you like -- is that part that works out what we're supposed to be doing with our lives. On this view secular ideologies -- like Marxism -- also count as religions. This tends to piss them off because secular people don't like to be labeled as religious. That's fine, they can pick whatever terminology makes them happy. But we all have some reason for not just laying down on the floor and dying, even though there's no empirical, rational reason why not.

Could you please elaborate on why you think science agrees more closely to Buddhism? What's attracted you to Buddhism?

I should be clear from the beginning that I agree to something like Stephen Jay Gould's concept of "nonoverlapping magisteria" (NOMA). The idea is that religion and science are different pursuits, and their truth claims shouldn't be seen as incompatible. Of course, it is true that religion sometimes makes empirical claims -- but this is where it tends to get in trouble. Religion should leave the empirical science to the scientists and stop embarrassing itself. Science is not its business anyway. I tend to think of religious systems as interesting systems of metaphors, not literal truth, because this is where they are most useful and enlightening. For instance, I couldn't care less if Jesus was a real historical person (I think he probably was, although I'm quite certain he wasn't the "son of God"), because it's either true or it isn't, and no amount of talking about it will matter. But I find some of his teachings interesting, because they tell us some interesting things about how to live. Whether he existed or not doesn't change the validity of the teachings.

So, that said, I don't consider it particularly important whether any religion matches up well with contemporary science or not. The comment I made to TBS was partly to try to get him to refute me rather than hearing him go on and on about how the Qur'an is so scientifically accurate. However, I'll point you to this video which, while a little on the cheesy side, draws some interesting lines between Buddhist thought an science. Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent co-arising, or what might be called the Buddhist theory of interrelatedness or relativity) and anicca (impermanence, that all things are in a constant state of flux) in particular seem to fit well with a physics that recognizes a universal relativity and wave-particle duality. And of course, it doesn't hurt that Buddhism doesn't subscribe to the idea of an interventionalist God.

I will say lastly regarding science and religion that sometimes it is a good thing for the two to interact, even if they have different tasks. For instance, religion can sometimes have insights that empirical science overlooks. If you look later on in that thread to which I posted a link, you'll see Siro and I arguing about the notion of panexperientialism, which most scientists tend to dismiss, but which I regard as more likely than the possibility of fully "dead" and "inert" matter.

As for why I was personally drawn to Buddhism, it was really through the concepts of śūnyatā and anattā as philosophies of personal identity (or the lack thereof). I am very interested in philosophies of death and personal identity -- that is, what does it mean to die, what is it that actually dies? I by no means think that there is any kind of subjective afterlife, but I also tend to think that western notions of the self being the most real thing are a little misguided. But after exploring these concepts I've come to appreciate Buddhism as a total worldview, even if I don't always agree with everything it teaches. I've also been slowly expanding into other dharma traditions like Jainism, which has its own interesting twists (and its own silly insanity).

Science is now starting to discover the fact that the universe had a beginning - the Big Bang theory is now widely believed to have happened - evidenced by the cosmic background radiation, the number of quarsars drop off for redshifts, galaxies moving away from each other, etc, etc.

Ah, but what exactly does "beginning" mean here? As far as I can tell, the big bang requires that all the matter/energy in the universe was present at the time the big bang happened, i.e. when the universe "began." But if this is the case, then it seems hard to say that at any time there was strictly "nothing" -- rather, the big bang was the beginning of a particular kind of order to the universe.

What I'm saying is that the big bang may well be true. But it doesn't propose that the universe popped into existence out of nothing (unless I misunderstand the theory).

 

[The Midnight]

Yes thank you for responding so comprehensively above.

I guess the thing with Buddhism that I question is the fact that it's making observations which to me are 'observable truths'. It's like saying "Oh look - the sky is blue". Well of course it is, and nobody can dispute that.

So the idea of impermanence, while it may be ground breaking 2000 years ago, it's still something that can be "observed". Similarly with co-independence and lack of identity or 'self'. All fine and good, but again they are simply 'observable truths' to me.

Then when you start to ask a Buddhist, ok then how did this universe came to be? The answer you always get is "that is a question that cannot be answered, therefore we do not ask those questions".

You can argue Christians talk about revelations, which cannot be proved scientifically, therefore it is subjected to scrutiny, but at least there is something there that explains our existence. Albeit faith is required.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

Yes thank you for responding so comprehensively above.

I guess the thing with Buddhism that I question is the fact that it's making observations which to me are 'observable truths'. It's like saying "Oh look - the sky is blue". Well of course it is, and nobody can dispute that.

So the idea of impermanence, while it may be ground breaking 2000 years ago, it's still something that can be "observed". Similarly with co-independence and lack of identity or 'self'. All fine and good, but again they are simply 'observable truths' to me.

Then when you start to ask a Buddhist, ok then how did this universe came to be? The answer you always get is "that is a question that cannot be answered, therefore we do not ask those questions".

You can argue Christians talk about revelations, which cannot be proved scientifically, therefore it is subjected to scrutiny, but at least there is something there that explains our existence. Albeit faith is required.

Eh, I only partially agree with all this.

To take your last point first, it is true that the Abrahamic religions are in general far more concerned with the historicity of their claims. To them it matters that Jesus really walked the earth and really was the son of God. As a general rule, Hindus (for instance) are far less concerned with the question of whether Shiva was a historical figure. To them it really doesn't matter much one way or the other. Personally, I think this is the correct sort of attitude to take.

But this is not to say that eastern religions don't have revelation. The vedas are thought to not be of human origin, but divinely revealed and eternal. And of course, the Buddha is thought to have a achieved enlightenment, and his teachings are considered authoritative. And many of these "truths" are highly subjective -- like "all life is suffering." Sure, if you define suffering a particular way, you could say that this is observably true, but it's not how us westerners generally think about the world. It's more important on a life-meaning and life-purpose level than it is on an empirical truth level. Personally, I've found it a helpful counterbalance to western Christianity -- which stresses human dominion and stewardship over the earth and the immortality of the soul, among other things -- to study a Buddhist philosophy that stresses that desire causes suffering, there is no persistent self, and that we should try to escape from the illusions of self and happiness. To me none of these statements are "observable truths," they're different and ultimately indemonstrable life metaphors.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I noticed that many Christians like to pride themselves on being simple, even when they really aren't. Why is that?

It is hard to elaborate because I'm not sure I understand it. There is a tendency for some Christians to associate humbleness with simplicity. Like Babe using the word "sophistry" to describe the work of Marx. That's a Platonic concept that stems from Plato's impulse to characterize certain philosophies as an attempt to muck up simple truths by complicating the meaning of their concepts (Plato is the father of modern religion). It is probably part of why so many Christians express hostility toward the "intellectual elites".

Just because I choose to joke around does not mean I know as little as you presume about philosophy.

You seem to be confusing the word simplicity with a lack of intelligence.

Just because somebody discards faith in God, and starts to talk using big words, does not make them "intellectually elite". There are plenty of intellectual giants that choose not to speak in such a way to give off the impression they think they are better or smarter than everyone else. I associate that stuff with arrogance or egotism rather than intelligence. There are also plenty of people that can also make use of language and words that get to a point and with nuance, yet without the need to set themselves above others.

What exactly do you mean by simplicity. Your tone suggests that it is a negative thing.

Do you mean

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein

"It is true intelligence for a man to take a subject that is mysterious and great in itself and to unfold and simplify it so that a child can understand it." - John H. Taylor

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." - Leonardo Da Vinci

“The greatest ideas are the simplest.” - William Golding

“Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.”
― Confucius

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”
― E.F. Schumacher

“Our life is frittered away by detail. Simplify, simplify.”
― Henry David Thoreau, Walden and Other Writings

“There is no greatness where there is not simplicity, goodness, and truth.”
― Leo Tolstoy

“The greatest ideas are the simplest.”
― William Golding, Lord of the Flies

“It is not a daily increase, but a daily decrease. Hack away at the inessentials.”
― Bruce Lee

“Nothing is more simple than greatness; indeed, to be simple is to be great.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Nature is pleased with simplicity. And nature is no dummy”
― Isaac Newton

“People who pride themselves on their "complexity" and deride others for being "simplistic" should realize that the truth is often not very complicated. What gets complex is evading the truth.”
― Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays

“Or, rather, let us be more simple and less vain.”
― Jean-Jacques Rousseau

“I am not a genius, I am just curious. I ask many questions. and when the answer is simple, then God is answering.”
― Albert Einstein

“Any darn fool can make something complex; it takes a genius to make something simple.”
― Pete Seeger

“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.”
― Isaac Newton

“A common man marvels at uncommon things. A wise man marvels at the commonplace.”
― Confucius

 

[Siro]

For one, I don't know what you mean by intelligence, or how you're measuring it. And I'm certainly not associating complexity with the use of big words (but then again, that whole paragraph was to attack me). And those quotes are using the word to mean completely different things. But the mere fact you felt the need to post them suggests you DO understand what I'm talking about. You find a certain appeal in simplicity. Not the kind of simplicity that Einstein is talking about (the one about sticking to the fewest assumption), or the one they teach you in writing class (concision, in my arrogant vocab), but the type that relates to meekness or humbleness. Why does that appeal to you?

 

[The Midnight]

Eh, I only partially agree with all this.

To take your last point first, it is true that the Abrahamic religions are in general far more concerned with the historicity of their claims. To them it matters that Jesus really walked the earth and really was the son of God. As a general rule, Hindus (for instance) are far less concerned with the question of whether Shiva was a historical figure. To them it really doesn't matter much one way or the other. Personally, I think this is the correct sort of attitude to take.

But this is not to say that eastern religions don't have revelation. The vedas are thought to not be of human origin, but divinely revealed and eternal. And of course, the Buddha is thought to have a achieved enlightenment, and his teachings are considered authoritative. And many of these "truths" are highly subjective -- like "all life is suffering." Sure, if you define suffering a particular way, you could say that this is observably true, but it's not how us westerners generally think about the world. It's more important on a life-meaning and life-purpose level than it is on an empirical truth level. Personally, I've found it a helpful counterbalance to western Christianity -- which stresses human dominion and stewardship over the earth and the immortality of the soul, among other things -- to study a Buddhist philosophy that stresses that desire causes suffering, there is no persistent self, and that we should try to escape from the illusions of self and happiness. To me none of these statements are "observable truths," they're different and ultimately indemonstrable life metaphors.

?? You don't think the statement "desire causes suffering" is observable? Or that "happiness is an illusion" is not observable? I think they all are observable because you can show examples supporting those statements that exists within the realm of this universe.

Interestingly 1 of the things the Buddha said which I would not label "observable truth" I find is the concept of reincarnation. The 2nd of his awakening "Insight into the workings of Karma and Reincarnation".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_in_Buddhism

But the concept of reincarnation goes against the empirical fact that the human race started with a small group of people and we now have more than 7 billion people. So I am not sure how that works. When I die, does my soul split into 2 or 3 to accommodate for the significant increase in population?

 

[The Midnight]

I find this video really helpful in bridging the Eastern religion and the Western religion

The interesting bit to me starts at 29min - 34.45min.

To me true selflessness - is not simply to be rid of all of one's desire and to cease suffering, but it is to have love for all beings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv0RFMQgh10

 

[One Brow]

What I'm saying is that the big bang may well be true. But it doesn't propose that the universe popped into existence out of nothing (unless I misunderstand the theory).

Actually, it's a little closer to "popped into existence out of nothing" then 'explosion of pre-existing matter'. One way of explaining this is that all the mass in the universe balanced out by the force of gravity, so the net energy of the universe is zero.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I noticed that many Christians like to pride themselves on being simple, even when they really aren't. Why is that?

It is hard to elaborate because I'm not sure I understand it. There is a tendency for some Christians to associate humbleness with simplicity. Like Babe using the word "sophistry" to describe the work of Marx. That's a Platonic concept that stems from Plato's impulse to characterize certain philosophies as an attempt to muck up simple truths by complicating the meaning of their concepts (Plato is the father of modern religion). It is probably part of why so many Christians express hostility toward the "intellectual elites".

For one, I don't know what you mean by intelligence, or how you're measuring it. And I'm certainly not associating complexity with the use of big words (but then again, that whole paragraph was to attack me). And those quotes are using the word to mean completely different things. But the mere fact you felt the need to post them suggests you DO understand what I'm talking about. You find a certain appeal in simplicity. Not the kind of simplicity that Einstein is talking about (the one about sticking to the fewest assumption), or the one they teach you in writing class (concision, in my arrogant vocab), but the type that relates to meekness or humbleness. Why does that appeal to you?

First of all, what do you mean by intelligence, or how you are measuring it? You brought it up. The mere fact that I posted those quotes shows only that I being a Christian decided to take up the other side of the argument you are presenting, and is in no way an indication of what my personal take is on simplicity. Also you have not explained well enough what you mean by simplicity, so how would anyone know which quotes are in line with what you are thinking and which ones are not? Notice the question before the quotes, you still have not answered which quotes are in line with what you are thinking, if any.

If you want an answer to the question, why don't you use that concision you are so fond of to phrase the question in such a way that you are direct and exact and there is no misunderstanding about what you are asking. Define what you think simplicity is, define what you think humility is, and explain why you think there is a disconnect between the two and why you think you see a contradiction in Christians that you see as focused on simplicity and yet seeing it as humility.

Vague questions get all sorts of responses.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Bill and Ted

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

PS: Half of the reason why I made this thread is so I could hear you guys talk about certain philosophers, mention their ideas so I can pursue some of their works further when the time arises.



I truly know so, so little regarding philosophy, and I have an insatiable longing to know more.

Quit while you are behind. For the love of everything that is sacred don't become a philosophy nerd.

 

[addictionary]

Durkheim for his interest in suicide, Mills for summarizing the way American state power works, Berkeley (I might be wrong) for accepting the existence beyond perception and knowledge, Freud for emphasizing the reason behind most of our actions, Horkheimer and Adorno for making us acknowledge the emptied concepts of our post capitalist world, Herakleitos for suggesting the eternal existence of change.

Might come up with some more later.

 

[babe]

Durkheim for his interest in suicide, Mills for summarizing the way American state power works, Berkeley (I might be wrong) for accepting the existence beyond perception and knowledge, Freud for emphasizing the reason behind most of our actions, Horkheimer and Adorno for making us acknowledge the emptied concepts of our post capitalist world, Herakleitos for suggesting the eternal existence of change.

Might come up with some more later.

Jesus for His crucifixion and ressurection...... affirming the eternal nature of life and the soul and the value of repentance over escapism and irresponsibility. . . . should I go on???? Yes, yes. . . . yes.

The John Birch Society for elucidating the persons and methods of turning the American Revolution into the Final Solution David Rockefeller is proud of achieving. . . . .in his own convoluted mind.

Moses for going up on Mt. Sinai and conversing with God. . . . thereby bringing back to humanity a small inkling of what reality lies beyond our perception and knowledge. . . . .

About one hundred modern psychiatrists who've been undoing Freud piecemeal, realizing that he was a drugged up fraud who made up his "reason" allegedly behind human actions. . . .

and who the hell can even be serious believing in a "post capitalist world"????? Statist/Marxist/ whateverists will always, forever and forever, be using their philosophical rhetoric to mesmerize stupid people into giving away their freedom and material possessions. . . . forever regenerating the upper ruling class of tyrants that has forever ruled mankind. . . . with their concentration of money and control of resources.

and likewise it didn't take a Herakleitios to know that things change and will go on changing. Some monkey swinging in the jungle a million years ago knew that.

 

[babe]

Actually, it's a little closer to "popped into existence out of nothing" then 'explosion of pre-existing matter'. One way of explaining this is that all the mass in the universe balanced out by the force of gravity, so the net energy of the universe is zero.

Actually, even the Big Bang theory has to postulate a continuity of physical laws which have always been in existence.

The Mormon "Prophet" Joseph Smith, grandly entertaining the frontier folk of almost two centuries ago in the midwestern woods and plains, in all their ignorant glory, said "the elements are eternal,and cannot be created or made", refuting the common Christian notion of God creating the universe out of nothing by a speaking the command for things to just "Exist".

It might be a useful exercise to start with the axiom of a universe with a net energy of zero, I suppose. But I'd speculate right off if that's the case, there could be no creation of "matter" and/or "energy" unless there is a God who can just "say so" somehow. . . . . which I think is just nonsense. Even Moe knows that. It raises the question of what that God would be in the first place, and is clearly a circular argument with trivial solutions. . . i.e. . . . . no meaningful results.

How would gravity be "balanced out" by "force of gravity" when gravity is itself a property of matter?

nah, Joseph Smith is a greater cosmologist. There might be something like "Big Bangs" going off, but they come from a continuing existence of everything.

 

[One Brow]

Actually, even the Big Bang theory has to postulate a continuity of physical laws which have always been in existence.

There's no such thing as a physical law, except in the sense of things generally behaving the same way.

 

[Hekate]

I have just read La Nausée(Nausea) by Sartre and it was very interesting. Existentialism may be what fits me better. I would really like to hear your opinions about Sartre and existentialism.

 

[The Midnight]

I have just read La Nausée(Nausea) by Sartre and it was very interesting. Existentialism may be what fits me better. I would really like to hear your opinions about Sartre and existentialism.

From Wiki:

Many critics argue Sartre's philosophy is contradictory. Specifically, they argue that Sartre makes metaphysical arguments despite his claiming that his philosophical views ignore metaphysics. Herbert Marcuse criticized Being and Nothingness (1943) by Jean-Paul Sartre for projecting anxiety and meaninglessness onto the nature of existence itself: "Insofar as Existentialism is a philosophical doctrine, it remains an idealistic doctrine: it hypostatizes specific historical conditions of human existence into ontological and metaphysical characteristics. Existentialism thus becomes part of the very ideology which it attacks, and its radicalism is illusory".

In Letter on Humanism, Heidegger criticized Sartre's existentialism:

Existentialism says existence precedes essence. In this statement he is taking existentia and essentia according to their metaphysical meaning, which, from Plato's time on, has said that essentia precedes existentia. Sartre reverses this statement. But the reversal of a metaphysical statement remains a metaphysical statement. With it, he stays with metaphysics, in oblivion of the truth of Being.

 

[Siro]

I have just read La Nausée(Nausea) by Sartre and it was very interesting. Existentialism may be what fits me better. I would really like to hear your opinions about Sartre and existentialism.

Is that the one with the child molester subplot? It's a pretty good novel. It feels a lot more Cartesian than most of Sartre's work. I personally find Camus to be a more powerful thinker, so you should check him out if you like Sartre. I bet you'd also like the work of James Joyce (who's not a philosopher).

As far as the actual philosophy, existentialism holds a certain appeal to me as well. Not Sartre specifically. Unfortunately, the philosophy of the modernists of that period reeks of Freudian religiosity, even thought it obsesses over the shortcomings of metaphysics. It's an annoying contradiction, and it's just too hard to ignore as it permeates most aspects of Sartre's thought.

Edit: You should also check out the work of other non-existentialist modernists, like James and Dewey, whom I mentioned in my first post. And you should most definitely explore Bertland Russell, who was unjustly omitted from my list of greatest philosophers.