A proper philosophical starting point

[Ratjaws]

I still don't think we start by knowing our philosophy is true. We start not knowing anything then accept the truth that we exist or that something exists that we can observe and begin gaining knowledge about.

If we started by knowing our philosophy is true, there would be no reason to ask questions because we'd already know we have the true philosophy.

True Scotsman said: ↑
1. A proper philosophical starting point needs to be true. If the truth of the starting point is in question then the rest of the worldview is in doubt.

Chriliman replied:
Great thoughts, but one can't start by knowing what is true. You must start by asking honest questions with the intent of finding the truth. It's literally impossible for a human being to start with a true philosophy or start knowing their philosophy is true.

Chriliman,
Formally speaking, philosophy is the study of how to think to avoid errors (minor logic) and arrive at truth (major logic). It is to pay attention to how we think so we arrive at truth. So if you mean formal by the word philosophy then I'd say you are correct.

If you mean informally, or by how we think apart from formal training, then I have to continue to disagree with you. Not just how could we think, but why would we continue to think if we hadn't the ability to arrive at truth? We assume we have the ability to acquire truth. This assumption is knowledge and a kind of knowledge that is true. Only then, because of this prerequisite truth, do we ask questions in order to know more. So philosophy in this sense is already within us... that is we possess a kind of pre-knowledge of truth, or a pre-truth, that enables us to then inquire about new aspects of truth (that is the truth of beings outside our mind and beings of reason within our mind). One could say this knowledge is of ourselves that matures in us as our mind develops (the age of reason is where we formally locate the functioning possession of this ability). Therefore again, if we did not think we could acquire truth, which assumes we know we can, then we would not try... don't you think?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Arch,
Good to hear from you again. Who said anything about "absolute certainty." Certainly I did not! This might be PsychoSarah's take on my view but it is a misunderstanding. Nor have I spoken of certainty in percentages either... as PsychoSarah has. When I bring up certain knowledge it has to do with what is essential to being as well as particular aspects of being. It's not absolute (of everything knowable) nor what is mutable in being (by definition it would change and you would lose certainty).

We were not speaking of theology solving problems here. I'm addressing problems with the modern scientific view often termed quantum strangeness that come from the modern philosophical view(s) scientists (and their popularizers) hold today. If you've read my posts to PsychoSarah you'd see I strongly question the atomic/fundamental particle theory (which as a theory has a philosophical underpinning) and have proposed another (hylomorphic theory) that does not come with these problems that violate our everyday experience.

Evidently you've not been paying attention...

Honestly, you have a penchant for rambling, so I think I can be forgiven for zoning out when you do.

 

[Chriliman]

True Scotsman said: ↑
1. A proper philosophical starting point needs to be true. If the truth of the starting point is in question then the rest of the worldview is in doubt.

Chriliman replied:
Great thoughts, but one can't start by knowing what is true. You must start by asking honest questions with the intent of finding the truth. It's literally impossible for a human being to start with a true philosophy or start knowing their philosophy is true.

Chriliman,
Formally speaking, philosophy is the study of how to think to avoid errors (minor logic) and arrive at truth (major logic). It is to pay attention to how we think so we arrive at truth. So if you mean formal by the word philosophy then I'd say you are correct.

Ah, thanks for making that clear, yes I was referring to formal philosophy. If True Scotsman was not presenting a formal philosophy, then I apologize for assuming he was.

Thanks!

 

[Colter]

"In science the human self observes the material world; philosophy is the observation of this observation of the material world; religion, true spiritual experience, is the experiential realization of the cosmic reality of the observation of the observation of all this relative synthesis of the energy materials of time and space. To build a philosophy of the universe on an exclusive materialism is to ignore the fact that all things material are initially conceived as real in the experience of human consciousness. The observer cannot be the thing observed; evaluation demands some degree of transcendence of the thing which is evaluated." UB 1955

 

[Ratjaws]

"In science the human self observes the material world; philosophy is the observation of this observation of the material world; religion, true spiritual experience, is the experiential realization of the cosmic reality of the observation of the observation of all this relative synthesis of the energy materials of time and space. To build a philosophy of the universe on an exclusive materialism is to ignore the fact that all things material are initially conceived as real in the experience of human consciousness. The observer cannot be the thing observed; evaluation demands some degree of transcendence of the thing which is evaluated." UB 1955

Colter,
I'm not sure what was said in the quote you gave or who the source is? As best I understood it there is some truth but it seems very ambiguous. The last two sentences trouble me the most because they seem to suggest idealism... in that "all things material are initially conceived as real in the experience of human consciousness." It is wrong to attempt to build a philosophy on "exclusive materialism" as is suggested here but it would not be so because of an initial experience of the human consciousness. The material world exists independent of our conscious recognition of it and while this is true, apart from existence, there is a dependence of material being on conscious being. In other words we do affect our surroundings as is seen in physics when we try to measure a "particle's" direction and velocity, but end up changing one or the other, making that measurement inaccurate. At the everyday level of existence we don't experience this "strangeness" yet it is real.

What we can build a philosophy on is our knowledge of the world around us (including our own mind, contrary to what this quote seems to say). In other words there is a knower and a known. In terms of this quote there is the conscious observer and the material thing being observed. Neither carry more weight than the other and so the balance is to recognize both are necessary to a valid metaphysics.

Next, while science is the human self observing the material world... philosophy is not just the observation of this observation, but an observation of the material world that goes deeper than the scientific observation. Both are rooted in observation which I think many materialists who reject philosophy as something important to our overall knowledge overlook.

Finally, while religion is about true experience, it is not "...the experiential realization of the cosmic reality of the observation of the observation of all this relative synthesis of the energy materials of time and space." Of the two types of religion, natural and supernatural, the latter is not focused on the material world but on what is immaterial and above nature. I think one could also say that natural religion is this too but it does not have a true supernatural component. I think I would be more accurate in saying only supernatural religion has a divine source, and therefore component, influencing those who adhere to it. In fact this divine source is a personal being that cannot be belittled by trite phrases like a "cosmic reality" that depersonalizes the subject. Needless to say true religion is about more than "cosmic reality" or "relative synthesis of the energy materials of time and space." I'm not even sure this latter sentence fragment is coherent but maybe you can pull something from it that I am missing?

Nevertheless, it's certain from the Christian perspective that our religious experience is about the worship of our Creator. It is not concentrated on the material world except to point us in some way to our Creator and how this omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being relates to us.

 

[Davian]

...
Finally, while religion is about true experience,

I don't get this. If there are ten of thousands of religions and sects, and only one (if any at all) can be "true" (in accordance with reality), it follows that religious experience in general is false.

 

[Colter]

Colter,
I'm not sure what was said in the quote you gave or who the source is? As best I understood it there is some truth but it seems very ambiguous. The last two sentences trouble me the most because they seem to suggest idealism... in that "all things material are initially conceived as real in the experience of human consciousness." It is wrong to attempt to build a philosophy on "exclusive materialism" as is suggested here but it would not be so because of an initial experience of the human consciousness. The material world exists independent of our conscious recognition of it and while this is true, apart from existence, there is a dependence of material being on conscious being. In other words we do affect our surroundings as is seen in physics when we try to measure a "particle's" direction and velocity, but end up changing one or the other, making that measurement inaccurate. At the everyday level of existence we don't experience this "strangeness" yet it is real.

What we can build a philosophy on is our knowledge of the world around us (including our own mind, contrary to what this quote seems to say). In other words there is a knower and a known. In terms of this quote there is the conscious observer and the material thing being observed. Neither carry more weight than the other and so the balance is to recognize both are necessary to a valid metaphysics.

Next, while science is the human self observing the material world... philosophy is not just the observation of this observation, but an observation of the material world that goes deeper than the scientific observation. Both are rooted in observation which I think many materialists who reject philosophy as something important to our overall knowledge overlook.

Finally, while religion is about true experience, it is not "...the experiential realization of the cosmic reality of the observation of the observation of all this relative synthesis of the energy materials of time and space." Of the two types of religion, natural and supernatural, the latter is not focused on the material world but on what is immaterial and above nature. I think one could also say that natural religion is this too but it does not have a true supernatural component. I think I would be more accurate in saying only supernatural religion has a divine source, and therefore component, influencing those who adhere to it. In fact this divine source is a personal being that cannot be belittled by trite phrases like a "cosmic reality" that depersonalizes the subject. Needless to say true religion is about more than "cosmic reality" or "relative synthesis of the energy materials of time and space." I'm not even sure this latter sentence fragment is coherent but maybe you can pull something from it that I am missing?

Nevertheless, it's certain from the Christian perspective that our religious experience is about the worship of our Creator. It is not concentrated on the material world except to point us in some way to our Creator and how this omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being relates to us.

I assume a degree of familiarity of spiritual truths within those reading along. God is not the creator of part of reality, everything, nature and spirit is of God.

The source of the quote may be helpful: http://truthbook.com/urantia-book/paper-112-personality-survival