Killing the Devil inside of me, with the help of Descartes?

[Moral Orel]

Basically, in simple terms, it means that some of what Descartes claimed, however brilliantly he attempted to get to the gist of human certainity via a Foundationalist, Deductive 'hack' utilizing skepticism, was either wrong, at worst, or highly questionable, at best.

In his skeptical efforts to achieve certainty, he thought he could intentionally bifurcate his theory from his lived experience and achieve an accurate [objective?] appraisal of the nature of his mind and world. He seems to have failed, ending up with a kind of cognitive parallax without realizing it and, as a consequence of his influence, set the Modern world on a course that would contribute to its drift away from the Christian tradition ... it would also cause some contemporary Christians to take Foundationalism and Deductive thought too much to heart, thinking they could defend Christianity with a similar epistemological plan, one that while interesting and attention getting, ultimately fails.

There, how's that for a "simplification"?

Okay, and how does this all trace back to aesthetics and intuition?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, and how does this all trace back to aesthetics and intuition?

See my emendations I made to my post. Thanks.

[Edit: Yes, I know, I need to stop the habit of coming back into a post after the fact and making further edits ... I'll try to get myself house-broken soon! ]

 

[Moral Orel]

This is why "Subjectivity," as Kierkegaard defined it and as Pascal implied against Descartes, and as Philosophical Hermeneuticists like Zimmermann now employ, is important in how we evaluate our own intertwined engagement with objects of study in our world.

As far as I understand it, it seems like you're placing more importance on the subjective aspects, and less importance on the objective aspects. And I also get that we're far too beholden to subjectiveness to claim real objectivity, like that article you posted for NV about scientists having difficulty removing bias.

Are you simply saying that it's better to embrace the subjectivity than to chase after objectivity? Or are you saying that subjective feelings are the best way to discern objective truths?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As far as I understand it, it seems like you're placing more importance on the subjective aspects, and less importance on the objective aspects. And I also get that we're far too beholden to subjectiveness to claim real objectivity, like that article you posted for NV about scientists having difficulty removing bias.

Are you simply saying that it's better to embrace the subjectivity than to chase after objectivity? Or are you saying that subjective feelings are the best way to discern objective truths?

Neither. I'm saying that Existential Subjectivity is not your grandpa's old notion of "subjectivity" and is something none of us can get away from as we engage various studies of our objectively shared world; this is especially the case when we might be inclined to consider the philosophical essences (i.e. Epistemological, Metaphysical and Axiological) that play a part of our individual, human attempts to appraise and value the potential truth of Christianity. All of this together, Subjectively as a part of human hermeneutical praxis, also plays a part in our being enabled to get out from under being deceived by "the Devil."

 

[Moral Orel]

Neither. I'm saying that Existential Subjectivity is not your grandpa's old notion of "subjectivity" and is something none of us can get away from as we engage various studies of our objectively shared world

Should we attempt to find ways to limit subjectivity as we examine the world for objective facts?

this is especially the case when we might be inclined to consider the philosophical essences (i.e. Epistemological, Metaphysical and Axiological) that play a part of our individual, human attempts to appraise and value the potential truth of Christianity.

Appraising the value of the potential truth of Christianity isn't measuring the likelihood that Christianity is true, it's just gauging how great it would be if it is true. Is that really what you meant?

All of this together, Subjectively as a part of human hermeneutical praxis, also plays a part in our being enabled to get out from under being deceived by "the Devil."

How? Isn't the Devil going to tell you what you want to hear?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Should we attempt to find ways to limit subjectivity as we examine the world for objective facts?

Yes and no. I put it like this because I think it depends on to what extent we each are trying to do 'pure' physical science versus contemplating the 'meaning' of the Cosmos, of whether or not Jesus is Lord of it all and how I feel about all of these kinds of things as a package. If it's the latter, then you might as well ask me how I 'control' for Subjectivity each day when I evaluate my continuing feelings for my spouse. Remember, too, the existential Subjectivity (Capital 'S') isn't exactly the same thing as the everyday subjectivity we typically think of. It's kind of like the difference between the term 'gay' as it was used 100 years ago versus what it means today.

Appraising the value of the potential truth of Christianity isn't measuring the likelihood that Christianity is true, it's just gauging how great it would be if it is true. Is that really what you meant?

Not to be be curt, but 'no,' I meant to refer to the potential in that potential can be just as much of an aesthetic consideration as it is an objective one related to issues of probability or of ontology.

How? Isn't the Devil going to tell you what you want to hear?

... If we consider the contexts, both inside and outside of the bible, then it seems to me there will be limitations on just how successfully a real biblical Devil could and would tell me want I want to hear, otherwise if he's not careful, he'll just end up giving himself 'away' and we'll see more easily behind his ugly mask of deceit.

 

[Moral Orel]

Remember, too, the existential Subjectivity (Capital 'S') isn't exactly the same thing as the everyday subjectivity we typically think of. It's kind of like the difference between the term 'gay' as it was used 100 years ago versus what it means today.

If they have absolutely nothing to do with each other, then Subjectivity has nothing to do with my question about the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Did you really mean that they have nothing to do with each other? Because being "happy" and being "homosexual" have nothing to do with each other either.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If they have absolutely nothing to do with each other, then Subjectivity has nothing to do with my question about the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Did you really mean that they have nothing to do with each other? Because being "happy" and being "homosexual" have nothing to do with each other either.

Where did I precisely say "they have (absolutely) nothing to do with each other"?

 

[Moral Orel]

Where did I precisely say "they have (absolutely) nothing to do with each other"?

You never "precisely" say anything, that's why I constantly have to ask for clarification. You said the difference between Subjectivity and subjective is like the difference between gay (happy) and gay (homosexual). And since:

being "happy" and being "homosexual" have nothing to do with each other either.

You're saying that Subjectivity and subjective don't have anything to do with one another. So if you didn't mean to draw a comparison between two words that have absolutely nothing to do with one another, what did you mean?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You never "precisely" say anything, that's why I constantly have to ask for clarification. You said the difference between Subjectivity and subjective is like the difference between gay (happy) and gay (homosexual). And since:

You're saying that Subjectivity and subjective don't have anything to do with one another. So if you didn't mean to draw a comparison between two words that have absolutely nothing to do with one another, what did you mean?

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, that's me trying to understand your analogy. What's the difference between being "happy" and being "homosexual? Everything, right? They don't have anything to do with one another. Being happy doesn't make you a homosexual, being a homosexual doesn't make you happy... You gave an example of a word that people started using in a way that has nothing to do with the original meaning. So if the difference between Subjectivity and subjective is "like" that, then you're using Subjectivity in a way that has nothing to do with the original meaning of subjective.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, that's me trying to understand your analogy. What's the difference between being "happy" and being "homosexual? Everything, right? They don't have anything to do with one another. Being happy doesn't make you a homosexual, being a homosexual doesn't make you happy... You gave an example of a word that people started using in a way that has nothing to do with the original meaning. So if the difference between Subjectivity and subjective is "like" that, then you're using Subjectivity in a way that has nothing to do with the original meaning of subjective.

Correct. And I think I've already indicated that there is a difference between Subjectivity as Kierkegaard or more modern Hermeneuticists would deliberately use the term and the colloquial denotation of it that we all tend to think of when we're all wanting to avoid wasting our time doing some kind of non-prissy form of science. So, what I'm implying in cultural and social linkages in various usages of terms between times and individuals is something I will allow to remain standing since what I'm inferring is etymological in nature but derivative rather than some merely passive permutation of word usage.

Maybe keep in mind that despite the fact that there are some intricate issues bound up in the "mystery of original meaning" of thoughts and words, as John Haugeland (1985) specified, I'm trying to bring into this discussion the social and existential dynamics involved in the following bits of info represented by the two links below (which isn't to say that I have the last word on the matter---but since you're asking for a direction toward clarification, then it is a beginning point other than quoting huge chunks of either Kierkegaard or Zimmerman, or others, which I am not wont to do, and I am sure, you are surely not wont to read):

Gay - Wikipedia

Subjectivity - Wikipedia

Reference:
Haugeland, John. (1985). Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

 

[Moral Orel]

Correct.

Then they have nothing to do with each other and this was all a big red herring. You've been talking about something other than subjectivity this whole time. I don't care that the words expanded their meaning over time to be used in two completely different ways. We're talking about what they mean to people now. You haven't attempted to address the difference between subjectivity and objectivity at all because you've been talking about Subjectivity which isn't related to subjectivity at all.

I'll ask again, is there really anything more to subjective v objective than opinion v fact?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then they have nothing to do with each other and this was all a big red herring. You've been talking about something other than subjectivity this whole time. I don't care that the words expanded their meaning over time to be used in two completely different ways. We're talking about what they mean to people now. You haven't attempted to address the difference between subjectivity and objectivity at all because you've been talking about Subjectivity which isn't related to subjectivity at all.

I'll ask again, is there really anything more to subjective v objective than opinion v fact?

No, it's not a "big red herring"; and if I say you're "correct" in this instance, my response will only be affirmative if we have to remain on superficial levels of overall considerations, considerations that only sit as they are if we choose to live in mental and semantic Flatland. But since we don't live in Flatland, you're being 'correct' will only go so far. Of course, you might insist that that is just "my opinion."

However, you can insist what you want and I will just continue to insist that "opinion" isn't an exact synonym for "subjectivity," and being thus, I also continue to insist that it isn't a necessity for any of us to see that any person's subjective view sits in clear contradistinction to objective views, particularly where religion is concerned, and this will be the case even if it may be difficult or even nearly impossible for another person to perceive the same kind of relevance that I see through my own respective perspective.

In the future, please refrain from trying to pare down and reduce my position to some set of clear and distinct contradictory notions. You won't win; in fact, neither of us will win. But if you think you can break down my Existentially inclined appropriation of Critical Realism into faulty and fraudulent conceptions, then have at it.

 

[Moral Orel]

In the future, please refrain from trying to pare down and reduce my position to some set of clear and distinct contradictory notions. You won't win; in fact, neither of us will win. But if you think you can break down my Existentially inclined appropriation of Critical Realism into faulty and fraudulent conceptions, then have at it.

Sigh... You didn't state your position on the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. I asked if there was more to it, and you started in about Subjectivity which you later told me has nothing to do with subjectivity.

So how about these questions instead... Do your personal feelings about what you think is aesthetically pleasing have a connection to knowing objective facts? If something is aesthetically pleasing to you, does that make it objectively true, or is that just hope?

See, I'm under the impression that leaving out personal feelings, as much as possible, makes fact learning more reliable. Is that not the case?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sigh... You didn't state your position on the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. I asked if there was more to it, and you started in about Subjectivity which you later told me has nothing to do with subjectivity.

I didn't "start in" on Subjectivity if it's well known that I've been referring over and over and over to Pascal, Kierkegaard and Zimmermann, among others.

So how about these questions instead... Do your personal feelings about what you think is aesthetically pleasing have a connection to knowing objective facts?

Yes; but there's all the obverse of this to consider as well. Think: the various String Theories and their attending multi-verse extensions would fit into this obverse consideration, as an example, a consideration which makes these theories not so 'objective' as some scientific theorists have tended to think they are.

If something is aesthetically pleasing to you, does that make it objectively true, or is that just hope?

The answer to this "amphibious" question will depend on exactly what the "something" is that is causing an aesthetic response within me. As far as the Christian Faith is concerned, it's not just a modern, colloquial sense of hope, and it might better be said that my hope springs from both existentially perceiving and feeling the essence of the Christian faith from the only perspective that I can do this within----i.e. "mine." The upshot here is that unlike my Fundamentalist comrades, my epistemic outlook does not assume that any other person here will share with me an identical perspective or the same emotional responses when we contemplate either the nature and meaning of Jesus or the Devil, or any Interpra-Facts that may coincide with their presences in the World. There is not a one-size-fits-all epistemological algorithm we can all just plug into our brains and then, in typical Capitalistic fashion, Mass Produce an expected faith perspective on some kind of Foundationalistic, Deductive terms.

See, I'm under the impression that leaving out personal feelings, as much as possible, makes fact learning more reliable. Is that not the case?

Nope, according to the my Existential and Critical Realist approach, this isn't the case. This isn't to say, as I've averred before elsewhere, that if you and I would like to build a space-craft by which to touch down on the face of Mars, we'll need to have an agreed upon Praxis through which we'll work out our Episteme and Techne to objectively achieve a success mission, but if we then move to talking about trying to apply this same set of notions to the quality of belief and faith within the conceptual bounds of Christianity, then we should realize that all bets are off if we try to apply the same Praxis. However, this is where hermeneutics comes in and may help us mediate, and it better understand what we're doing and why we're doing what we do in each of the respective fields.............since they are different.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes

And what is that connection?

Think: the various String Theories and their attending multi-verse extensions would fit into this obverse consideration, as an example, a consideration which makes these theories not so 'objective' as some scientific theorists have tended to think they are.

Well, they're theories, so they already aren't objective facts. What are the supposed objective qualities about them that I should doubt how objective they are?

The answer to this "amphibious" question will depend on exactly what the "something" is that is causing an aesthetic response within me. As far as the Christian Faith is concerned, it's not just a modern, colloquial sense of hope, and it might better be said that my hope springs from both existentially perceiving and feeling the essence of the Christian faith from the only perspective that I can do this within----i.e. "mine." The upshot here is that unlike my Fundamentalist comrades, my epistemic outlook does not assume that any other person here will share with me an identical perspective or the same emotional responses when we contemplate either the nature and meaning of Jesus or the Devil, or any Interpra-Facts that may coincide with their presences in the World. There is not a one-size-fits-all epistemological algorithm we can all just plug into our brains and then, in typical Capitalistic fashion, Mass Produce an expected faith perspective on some kind of Foundationalistic, Deductive terms.

What about folks who feel the same way about Buddhism that you do about Christianity. How do we know which one of you is right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And what is that connection?

Well, they're theories, so they already aren't objective facts. What are the supposed objective qualities about them that I should doubt how objective they are?

What about folks who feel the same way about Buddhism that you do about Christianity. How do we know which one of you is right?

We're done here, Nick! While I respect your obvious intelligence, occasional bona-fide insight, and devotion to your respective field, I'm not Gradyll and I'm not going to play along with your tautological Detract and Re-Track game.

One thing you might want to realize in this--as I slough off from having further interlocuting with you on this whole matter--is that I'm not here to win points or converts, and I sure as hell don't think the Christian faith epistemologically works by way of some purely deductive method of inquiry and analysis; at best, deductive, foundationalistic thinking can only provide just so much grist either pro or con in the 'Jesus Debate,' let alone getting a person to a point of faith.

If you want more info, I've given you more than ample sources and direction in which to look ... go do your own work! I'm not wasting my less than ample time on people here who think this whole enterprise of interacting on behalf of the Christian faith is and only can be a successive set of moments over which to ... guffaw!

 

[Moral Orel]

We're done here, Nick! While I respect your obvious intelligence, occasional bona-fide insight, and devotion to your respective field, I'm not Gradyll and I'm not going to play along with your tautological Detract and Re-Track game.

I honestly don't know what you mean. I'm kind of a jerk to Grady, I don't hide that. But I'm not doing that here. I don't hide my jerkiness, it isn't implied.

One thing you might want to realize in this--as I slough off from having further interlocuting with you on this whole matter--is that I'm not here to win points or converts, and I sure as hell don't think the Christian faith epistemologically works by way of some purely deductive method of inquiry and analysis; at best, deductive, foundationalistic thinking can only provide just so much grist either pro or con in the 'Jesus Debate,' let alone getting a person to a point of faith.

I understand what your position is, I'm just asking you to talk some trash about deductive logic. You usually just call me a "hack" and leave it at that. In fact, I don't even think we're talking about deductive logic yet, we're just talking about the kinds of evidence to ponder.

If you want more info, I've given you more than ample sources and direction in which to look ... go do your own work! I'm not wasting my less than ample time on people here who think this whole enterprise of interacting on behalf of the Christian faith is and only can be a successive set of moments over which to ... guffaw!

I knew I was right that you just didn't want to have a conversation with someone who hasn't done all the reading you have. I just with you'd be open about that and say so from the start. I'm not here to "guffaw" at whatever you have to say. I'm still at the question asking stage, but you don't like my questions. Just make sure you don't complain about how people don't really want to engage you when you play hard to get like this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I honestly don't know what you mean. I'm kind of a jerk to Grady, I don't hide that. But I'm not doing that here. I don't hide my jerkiness, it isn't implied.

Well, I'm sorry, but you come across to me as a saboteur rather than simply being jerky, as if you have to prove of your mental mettle if you can somehow slice and dice your opponent's comments and/or arguments and essentially take him down a peg or three. Isn't this kind of what you implied in your comment to Todd over in Gradyll's thread?

I understand what your position is, I'm just asking you to talk some trash about deductive logic. You usually just call me a "hack" and leave it at that. In fact, I don't even think we're talking about deductive logic yet, we're just talking about the kinds of evidence to ponder.

Why would I talk "trash" about deductive logic. I've never said it was trash. If anything, I've stated that it has its time and place but that it shouldn't be relied upon exclusively like Descartes did, no matter how brilliant the person using it may be (again, such as Descartes, or in similar respects, perhaps yourself.)

I knew I was right that you just didn't want to have a conversation with someone who hasn't done all the reading you have. I just with you'd be open about that and say so from the start. I'm not here to "guffaw" at whatever you have to say. I'm still at the question asking stage, but you don't like my questions. Just make sure you don't complain about how people don't really want to engage you when you play hard to get like this.

****sigh**** I very much do not appreciate the assumptive comment you made above about how you think I "just didn't want to have a conversation with someone who hasn't done all the reading." WRONG-O!!! What I want to sense in some way is that my interlocutor at least gives a "care" about what I'm saying, whether he agrees with it or not. Otherwise, I feel I'm just wasting my time with a covert scoffer who merely wishes to play mind and semantic games over and over again.

Moreover, you often come across as one who attempts to ply his trade of deductive cuts upon my general statements, vanilla type statements intended to cover some ground, otherwise we'd be going through dozens upon dozens of pages of intensive and detailed writing which, honestly, unlike gradyll, I don't have time for. Besides, it's not like you're in need of remedial attention or like you're someone who needs a play-by-play recount of every itty-bitty detail in order to come to some kind of concrete understanding.