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

[Moral Orel]

Alright, that leaves things open for discussion and I think that's a reasonable position to be in.

I'm taking the side of doubt in this discussion, so my thrust is going to be, "You don't know that". Keep that in mind as you read my responses, I'm giving you a major spoiler for the ending of all my arguing here .

No, I don't think 'everything' is up for grabs. If it's up for grabs then we're kind of back to the Matrix or Evil Scientist type scenario which isn't really equivalent to the epistemic challenge we would find ourselves in IF the Bible just happens to be correct. In my thinking, if the Bible is true at some substantive level, even if not at an inerrant level, then this would imply that Satan is limited in power and in implementing his deceptive opportunities. Granted, what that limit would be is something about which I have no exacting knowledge, but surely we can glean some indications from the Bible on this matter.

Okay, for the sake of argument we'll assume the Bible is substantially accurate. From that we can conclude that God won't let the Devil fiddle with the Bible too much, but we can't assume it's immune to fiddling all together, can we? And I don't recall ever reading anything about what the Devil can't do. There are stories of things he's done that I know, and we can see the implication that the Devil can only do what God allows him to do, like in Job. And we can conclude that he has less abilities than God, but we're still left with a pretty long list. What else do you think we can rule out?

Nope, that wouldn't be accurate. I'd suggest that you lower your guard a little and maybe worry less about my psychological propensities or about what I might "really" be up to. While I admittedly do try to be creative in my communication, I'm anything but attempting to be crafty; and I'm sure not here to win debates.

Assumptions need to be made in any argument. I just want to know what those assumptions are so I can work within them. If we're not making any assumptions, then everything is up for grabs, that's why I ask.

 

[Moral Orel]

Those are all good questions, but are you inferring that we need to be able to "tell the difference" between these two entities in a binary way, that is, with some kind of absolute differential certainty?

I'm not asking for any specific level of certainty in my questions about "the long con". I'm just asking if there's any reason to lean one way or the other at all.

 

[gaara4158]

So you agree with Plantinga with respect to some natural processes but disagree with respect to others, and the points on which you disagree constitute a way forward for evolution?

To be honest I have not read any of Plantinga's primary texts on this topic, but I assume that the same holds true for you. What I assume he is saying is that "You can't get there from here." Evolution is survival-based, not truth-based. Truth (in the form of reliable cognitive faculties) may have some correlation to survival, but it may also deviate in substantial ways. The level of trust we place in our faculties and in the notion of truth is therefore disproportionate to a solely evolutionary account. It doesn't make sense to value truth over survival when our capacity for truth is reducible to survival.

I think it's an interesting argument, but it may be too complex for an internet forum. ...And in order to take up a defense of something like that I would have to spend more time here than I'd like.

Yes, I’ve opted out of getting too involved in this argument before as well, since it would take a pretty in-depth examination of what the correlation between survival and truth might actually be. Suffice it to say that I don’t believe it’s impossible to “get there from here.”

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm taking the side of doubt in this discussion, so my thrust is going to be, "You don't know that". Keep that in mind as you read my responses, I'm giving you a major spoiler for the ending of all my arguing here .

... is this to mean that "I don't know" that your position leaves things open for discussion and that it would thereby be a reasonable position to be in? Is this an indication of Agnosticism which you're breathing toward me, or is it Skepticism? How can I tell the difference in your meaning?

Okay, for the sake of argument we'll assume the Bible is substantially accurate. From that we can conclude that God won't let the Devil fiddle with the Bible too much, but we can't assume it's immune to fiddling all together, can we? And I don't recall ever reading anything about what the Devil can't do.

Oh my! Do you really think that if the bible doesn't say something about what the Devil can't do, then that leaves some amount of questioning completely open? I rather think that even if biblical silence does leave some issues open, despite this, we can still realize that if there are positive claims yet indirectly identifiable through contexts, then by further inference we may make we can safely posit that there are some limits to the Devil's power. I mean, we can tell that the Bible doesn't delineate Satan as some kind of a metaphysical version of Tron's Clu or The Matrix's Architect. At most, it seems that by literary contexts, and maybe even by the vestiges of historical events and Church Tradition, he's presented as being just a Social and Spiritual Engineer, a very powerful one acting upon our human, terrestrial setting, but he is no doubt curtailed in what he can ultimately accomplish, even if he may be able to utterly possess the minds of a few human individuals along the way. Besides, from what I can tell from the Bible, Satan doesn't need to possess the minds of people to do his dirty work. No, he just needs to sell subscriptions to his daily home journal, one that many folks seem to be moving in droves to stand in line and buy.

There are stories of things he's done that I know, and we can see the implication that the Devil can only do what God allows him to do, like in Job. And we can conclude that he has less abilities than God, but we're still left with a pretty long list. What else do you think we can rule out?

We can rule out that--excuse the pun like quip--he can fool all the people all of the time.

Assumptions need to be made in any argument. I just want to know what those assumptions are so I can work within them. If we're not making any assumptions, then everything is up for grabs, that's why I ask.

I'd say that being that since only some human assumptions [axioms] are grounded in apparent self-evidentiality, then even those that we think we all share are up for further discussion and deliberation. As for myself, I've said alluded elsewhere that if there are some ideas we might take a axiomatic, they'd be that: 1) no one human knows everything, and 2) at the end of the day, it's ultimately an Aesthetic, Existential choice to hermeneutically assess and subscribe to the 'truths' of Christianity.

So, if any of us is going to really deal with the Devil, that's where we need to start:

 

[Moral Orel]

... is this to mean that "I don't know" that your position leaves things open for discussion and that it would thereby be a reasonable position to be in? Is this an indication of Agnosticism which you're breathing toward me, or is it Skepticism? How can I tell the difference in your meaning?

My main thrust in this discussion is "You don't know that" about whatever we're discussing. I wasn't pointing to the discussion itself...

Oh my! Do you really think that if the bible doesn't say something about what the Devil can't do, then that leaves some amount of questioning completely open? I rather think that even if biblical silence does leave some issues open, despite this, we can still realize that if there are positive claims yet indirectly identifiable through contexts, then by further inference we may make we can safely posit that there are some limits to the Devil's power.

I agree, that's why I listed off a bunch of things that we can conclude and infer about what the Devil isn't capable of and asked you for your ideas on others.

We can rule out that--excuse the pun like quip--he can fool all the people all of the time.

Can he fool some of the people all of the time?

I'd say that being that since only some human assumptions [axioms] are grounded in apparent self-evidentiality, then even those that we think we all share are up for further discussion and deliberation. As for myself, I've said alluded elsewhere that if there are some ideas we might take a axiomatic, they'd be that: 1) no one human knows everything, and 2) at the end of the day, it's ultimately an Aesthetic, Existential choice to hermeneutically assess and subscribe to the 'truths' of Christianity.

That sounds like it's ultimately entirely subjective.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My main thrust in this discussion is "You don't know that" about whatever we're discussing. I wasn't pointing to the discussion itself...

Ok. I'm clear now on that. Thank you for clarifying.

I agree, that's why I listed off a bunch of things that we can conclude and infer about what the Devil isn't capable of and asked you for your ideas on others.

Maybe you and I should draw up a list, a Pro/Con list even?

Can he fool some of the people all of the time?

... define 'all' in this case, Nick. I mean, if we take as our example those old Canaanites from the Old Testament times, I guess it may be seen as being possible for the Devil to go 'all' multi-generational in deceiving people and moving them off on the wrong cultural track. But, in due time, the bible seems to indicate that they bumped into the Israelites; or rather I should say, the Israelites bumped into them.

On a separate note, there is that little bit in Mark 13:22 and in the 2nd chapter of 2 Thessalonians that, if true (and I know some like to debate it), might imply some limits to the potency of the Devil's delusive power.

That sounds like it's ultimately entirely subjective.

It kind of does, doesn't it? I guess I might at this point bring in a little of what Kierkegaard (who originally wrote in Dutch) has to say on such matters [as excerpted from his Concluding Unscientific Postscript]:

The way of objective reflection turns the subjective individual into something accidental and thereby turn existence into an indifferent, vanishing something. The way to the objective truth goes away from the subject, and while the subject and subjectivity become indifferent, the truth also becomes indifferent, and that is precisely its objective validity, because the interest, just like the decision, is subjectivity. The way of objective reflection now leads to abstract thinking, to mathematics, to historical knowledge of various kinds, and always leads away from the subjective individual, whose existence or nonexistence becomes, from an objective point of view, altogether properly, infinitely indifferent, altogether properly, because, as Hamlet says, existence and nonexistence have only subjective significance. At its maximum, this will lead to a contradiction, and to the extent that the subject does not become totally indifferent to himself, this is merely an indication that his objective striving is not objective enough. At its maximum, it will lead to the contradiction that only objectivity has come about, whereas subjectivity has gone out, that is, the existing subjectivity that has made an attempt to become what in the abstract sense is called subjectivity, the abstract form of an abstract objectivity. And yet, viewed subjectively, the objectivity that has come about is at its maximum either a hypothesis or an approximation, because all eternal decision is rooted specifically in subjectivity. (In Hong & Hong, p. 202)

Reference
Kierkegaard, Søren. The Essential Kierkegaard. (Eds. Hong & Hong). Princeton University Press, 2000.
​

And this is kind of what Pascal and the much more contemporary Philosophical Hermeneuticists imply as well, even if in perhaps a less convoluted way. If what Kierkegaard says is the case, and in some way I think it is, then in synthesizing Kierkegaard's prose about Subjectivity vs. Objectivity in our attempts to deal with human epistemology, existentialism and Christian theological problems, such as those we might have with the Devil (or with God, too, I suppose), and if we're going to aesthetically buy into what the biblical writers have to say about this dealing with deception, I'm going to have to further say that it seems we may be in for a bit of epistemological sticker-shock!

...and by the way, if any here are reading this little passage I've chosen from Kierkegaard and are having a hard time understanding it, well, that's why we're thankful to have @Silmarien among us who can likely explain it all to us. Of course, there's always the chance that she may disagree with it, too. (eek!)

 

[Uber Genius]

Someone said not too long ago that "these are the times that try men's souls," or something to that effect. I suppose he was right in some capacity because, let's face it, we all seem to be languishing in a world gone awry, and even if someone doesn't presently adhere to some form of Metaphysics and/or Religion, surely we can all agree that we're immoral in the way we not only treat each other but also in how we abuse the natural ecology of our shared planet.

On the Christian side of things, the tendency (rather the strong tendency) among the faithful is to think that there is a Devil behind much of the evils in the world that we have to contend with, not the least of which is his claimed and vaunted power for mass deception.

On the Skeptical and Atheistic side of things, there seems to be the idea that if there is a Devil, then we might not be able to be 'sure' that the Bible itself is not a deception, that what we think is good isn't really evil, and vice versa. If this is true then we're in for a doubly deep dose of deception … not only corporately, but also from within our individual perceptions of mind.

So, how do I Kill the Devil Inside of Me and begin to untangle this epistemological, metaphysical, and axiological mess?

Kill The Devil, by The Letter Black [...sounds a little like Rhianna on steroids! ]


Any suggestions? Anyone, anyone?

Mathematician and Philosopher, Rene Descartes had one. And his suggestion, or rather his piece of logical deduction, was that no such skeptical view of the Devil [or 'Evil Demon God'] could really be entertained for very long and remain cogent …

[Note to the concerned: Don't worry! I'm not going Cartesian; I'm still Pascalian! ]

I voted “winner” due to the audacity of the subject matter as what Christians know of the cogito or Cartesian skepticism etc?

But it seems if we know things like these are my hands typing a reply on my iPhone and pesky little things like other minds exist, there is a real world, and history didn’t start 5-minutes ago then we know them more certainly than the fact that they are all illusory.

On the Satan thing it seems that Jesus speaks more of him and his methods than many other important subjects.

In fact if the Gospel of the Kingdom is the central message of the gospels, and that message is the destruction of Satan’s works and authority, and further 2/23rds of Jesus’ ministry is casting out demons, then we have a difficult decision to make. Namely maintain an anti-supernatural worldview by rewriting the Bible in a way none of its authors would have recognized, or look at the data empirically and ask what do we make of this satanic figure ?

 

[Moral Orel]

Maybe you and I should draw up a list, a Pro/Con list even?

I don't know why you're rolling your eyes... Isn't that the subject of your thread? Deciding what the Devil can or can't do?

... define 'all' in this case, Nick. I mean, if we take as our example those old Canaanites from the Old Testament times, I guess it may be seen as being possible for the Devil to go 'all' multi-generational in deceiving people and moving them off on the wrong cultural track. But, in due time, the bible seems to indicate that they bumped into the Israelites; or rather I should say, the Israelites bumped into them.

On a separate note, there is that little bit in Mark 13:22 and in the 2nd chapter of 2 Thessalonians that, if true (and I know some like to debate it), might imply some limits to the potency of the Devil's delusive power.

Well, "all" would mean, at a minimum, one person's whole life.

It kind of does, doesn't it? I guess I might at this point bring in a little of what Kierkegaard (who originally wrote in Dutch) has to say on such matters [as excerpted from his Concluding Unscientific Postscript]:

The way of objective reflection turns the subjective individual into something accidental and thereby turn existence into an indifferent, vanishing something. The way to the objective truth goes away from the subject, and while the subject and subjectivity become indifferent, the truth also becomes indifferent, and that is precisely its objective validity, because the interest, just like the decision, is subjectivity. The way of objective reflection now leads to abstract thinking, to mathematics, to historical knowledge of various kinds, and always leads away from the subjective individual, whose existence or nonexistence becomes, from an objective point of view, altogether properly, infinitely indifferent, altogether properly, because, as Hamlet says, existence and nonexistence have only subjective significance. At its maximum, this will lead to a contradiction, and to the extent that the subject does not become totally indifferent to himself, this is merely an indication that his objective striving is not objective enough. At its maximum, it will lead to the contradiction that only objectivity has come about, whereas subjectivity has gone out, that is, the existing subjectivity that has made an attempt to become what in the abstract sense is called subjectivity, the abstract form of an abstract objectivity. And yet, viewed subjectively, the objectivity that has come about is at its maximum either a hypothesis or an approximation, because all eternal decision is rooted specifically in subjectivity. (In Hong & Hong, p. 202)

Reference
Kierkegaard, Søren. The Essential Kierkegaard. (Eds. Hong & Hong). Princeton University Press, 2000.
And this is kind of what Pascal and the much more contemporary Philosophical Hermeneuticists imply as well, even if in perhaps a less convoluted way. If what Kierkegaard says is the case, and in some way I think it is, then in synthesizing Kierkegaard's prose about Subjectivity vs. Objectivity in our attempts to deal with human epistemology, existentialism and Christian theological problems, such as those we might have with the Devil (or with God, too, I suppose), and if we're going to aesthetically buy into what the biblical writers have to say about this dealing with deception, I'm going to have to further say that it seems we may be in for a bit of epistemological sticker-shock!

...and by the way, if any here are reading this little passage I've chosen from Kierkegaard and are having a hard time understanding it, well, that's why we're thankful to have @Silmarien among us who can likely explain it all to us. Of course, there's always the chance that she may disagree with it, too. (eek!)

It kind of sounds like you're making a completely subjective guess about what you hope to be objectively true. Is that about right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know why you're rolling your eyes... Isn't that the subject of your thread? Deciding what the Devil can or can't do?

Hmmmm? Ok. I see I might need to publish my own 'emoticon usage chart' so people know what I mean when I use various emoticons, especially since the meaning they have for me may not be the meaning they have for other people.

Well, "all" would mean, at a minimum, one person's whole life.

Oh. Ok. Yeah, I suppose it could be that a singular person is utterly possessed by a demon, in which case that would likely be "all" in the case of the one person.

However, I was instead thinking more in a statistical spread of the number of people in any given population at any given time, more especially 'our' time. So, when I refer to "all," I had something different in mind. Sorry for my lack of hermeneutical understanding on your perspective on this.

It kind of sounds like you're making a completely subjective guess about what you hope to be objectively true. Is that about right?

....if, after "all" of the time I've been here on CF, and after "all" I've thus far said about how there is both a human epistemic component in faith AS WELL AS a required divine component in faith, then I'm not sure how my faith, as I understand it from my own human perspective, could be said to be a "COMPLETELY Subjective guess ..."

Sure, since meanings in the case of a concept like "CHRISTIAN FAITH" are somewhat ethereal, then I can understand how someone else might construe the psychological dynamics taking place inside my own skull to seem as ... essentially ethereal, solipsistic, and of little consequence or real data.

However, from my perspective, my own faith is, while admittedly still partly an intuitive hunch, an aesthetic response to all that I see as spiritually substantive in the world (some of which I haven't even gotten into here on CF), a response that also emerges out from the totality of all of I've read, studied, contemplated and experienced in my life.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I voted “winner” due to the audacity of the subject matter as what Christians know of the cogito or Cartesian skepticism etc?

I appreciate that, but honestly, Uber, I'm trying to get us all to go well beyond Descartes here ...

...this isn't to say you can't still like some of the things Descartes says and wish to use them.

But it seems if we know things like these are my hands typing a reply on my iPhone and pesky little things like other minds exist, there is a real world, and history didn’t start 5-minutes ago then we know them more certainly than the fact that they are all illusory.

I agree. I'm already a Realist, a Critical Realist, so I'm on board with 'touching' a real world. But, that whole mess of a discussion isn't really the focus here. The focus here isn't on whether there is a real world; rather the focus is more on how do any of us know we are being deceived in the here and now. I know that you know that Descartes' employment of the "evil-demon god" scenario was to supposedly enable us to work through coming to our Foundationalistic senses (senses that I don't share with Descartes really) and see that, with further thinking, all of this Uber-Skepticism just isn't really feasible (which is something I do generally share with Descartes, even if for different reasons; it's just that I don't go all the way because I think Pascal's disagreement with him has some teeth, too.)

On the Satan thing it seems that Jesus speaks more of him and his methods than many other important subjects.

In fact if the Gospel of the Kingdom is the central message of the gospels, and that message is the destruction of Satan’s works and authority, and further 2/23rds of Jesus’ ministry is casting out demons, then we have a difficult decision to make. Namely maintain an anti-supernatural worldview by rewriting the Bible in a way none of its authors would have recognized, or look at the data empirically and ask what do we make of this satanic figure ?

[For the sake of this thread, pretend that I don't actually agree with you about basic theology pertaining to the Bible's teaching on the Devil, so here it goes below: ]

While I'd very much agree that Jesus and His Apostle's teaching about Satan is an important aspect of how we Christians understand the nature of the world, when the whole bible is in question by skeptics and they think we 'don't know' whether it's true or not, kind of like being stuck in a sort of brain-in-a-vat without recourse to the fuller reality that is going on "out there," then we might not be able to subscribe easily to the idea that we are being thus deceived by this evil demon.

 

[Moral Orel]

Hmmmm? Ok. I see I might need to publish my own 'emoticon usage chart' so people know what I mean when I use various emoticons, especially since the meaning they have for me may not be the meaning they have for other people.

It's called "Roll Eyes". If you're on a computer, hover your mouse over any of them for a few seconds and it will tell you the name. I just assumed you were using it the way the website labelled it.

Oh. Ok. Yeah, I suppose it could be that a singular person is utterly possessed by a demon, in which case that would likely be "all" in the case of the one person.

However, I was instead thinking more in a statistical spread of the number of people in any given population at any given time, more especially 'our' time. So, when I refer to "all," I had something different in mind. Sorry for my lack of hermeneutical understanding on your perspective on this.

Okay, so one person can be deceived totally all of his time. Is there any way to 1) determine what that statistical spread is; and 2) determine if you're that guy?

....if, after "all" of the time I've been here on CF, and after "all" I've thus far said about how there is both a human epistemic component in faith AS WELL AS a required divine component in faith, then I'm not sure how my faith, as I understand it from my own human perspective, could be said to be a "COMPLETELY Subjective guess ..."

Sure, since meanings in the case of a concept like "CHRISTIAN FAITH" are somewhat ethereal, then I can understand how someone else might construe the psychological dynamics taking place inside my own skull to seem as ... essentially ethereal, solipsistic, and of little consequence or real data.

However, from my perspective, my own faith is, while admittedly still partly an intuitive hunch, an aesthetic response to all that I see as spiritually substantive in the world (some of which I haven't even gotten into here on CF), a response that also emerges out from the totality of all of I've read, studied, contemplated and experienced in my life.

You know me, I'm a deductive hack. I'm trying to draw out the objective part in your decision making process. Intuition and aesthetics are not objective. And yeah, I think if we got way down into the nitty-gritty of it all, it could be argued that all of your experiences are subjective, yadda-yadda. But I'm not going to go that far. What are the objective facts that make it more reasonable to suppose Christianity or even just theism in general is true as opposed to naturalism?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's called "Roll Eyes". If you're on a computer, hover your mouse over any of them for a few seconds and it will tell you the name. I just assumed you were using it the way the website labelled it.

I'm very much aware that hovering one's mouse over the emoticon will offer up the name, so thank anyway for the lesson. However, in thinking about the problems dealt with by hermeneutics, it might come down to the fact that I could be interpreting what a funny looking little purple guy who is rolling his eyes while smiling "means." For me it means something like, "either my response or what I'm saying is meant to be taken as tongue-in-cheek, or c'mon now, there's probably more to this than what we've all heretofore thought," RATHER THAN "...Oh, good gawd, what you're saying is utterly ridiculous and basically worth tossing into File 13!!! [triple exclamation points].

So, y'know, maybe we're just interpreting things a little differently and on various levels of meaning. I mean, sh-tuff happens, right?

Okay, so one person can be deceived totally all of his time. Is there any way to 1) determine what that statistical spread is; and 2) determine if you're that guy?

Speaking as a Social Science advocate, and as a philosopher, and as a **ahem** "bible-believing Christian," I'd have to say that it may be possible to determine some of this, if not utterly and completely, then at least to discern the general perceptive status of people within our society or of one's own perceptual status. The Big Kicker in all of this is that, as a Hermeneuticst, I'll also say that my own view will be relative to various external and internal factors, so if you don't bring a shared background in both external and internal factors, you might not see any truth in my evaluation; that is, this could be the case IF I were to be able to present a demonstration of such and such a state of society or of our own selves within our pespectives and perceptions. So, some aspects will appear to you to be Objective while some will seem more Subjective, and this could be the case EVEN IF neither of us is deceived by an evil demon.

You know me, I'm a deductive hack. I'm trying to draw out the objective part in your decision making process. Intuition and aesthetics are not objective. And yeah, I think if we got way down into the nitty-gritty of it all, it could be argued that all of your experiences are subjective, yadda-yadda. But I'm not going to go that far. What are the objective facts that make it more reasonable to suppose Christianity or even just theism in general is true as opposed to naturalism?

And I think you deduce that I'm not a deductive hack, although deduction does have its place.

First, we have to get into what objective "means."

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm very much aware that hovering one's mouse over the emoticon will offer up the name, so thank anyway for the lesson. However, in thinking about the problems dealt with by hermeneutics, it might come down to the fact that I could be interpreting what a funny looking little purple guy who is rolling his eyes while smiling "means." For me it means something like, "either my response or what I'm saying is meant to be taken as tongue-in-cheek, or c'mon now, there's probably more to this than what we've all heretofore thought," RATHER THAN "...Oh, good gawd, what you're saying is utterly ridiculous and basically worth tossing into File 13!!! [triple exclamation points].

So, y'know, maybe we're just interpreting things a little differently and on various levels of meaning. I mean, sh-tuff happens, right?

No offense, but I don't think you understand the appropriate times to roll your eyes at something, then. You roll your eyes at things other people say, not at the things you say. It's weird to roll your eyes at yourself, and it would be weird for me to infer that was what going on.

Speaking as a Social Science advocate, and as a philosopher, and as a **ahem** "bible-believing Christian," I'd have to say that it may be possible to determine some of this, if not utterly and completely, then at least to discern the general perceptive status of people within our society or of one's own perceptual status. The Big Kicker in all of this is that, as a Hermeneuticst, I'll also say that my own view will be relative to various external and internal factors, so if you don't bring a shared background in both external and internal factors, you might not see any truth in my evaluation; that is, this could be the case IF I were to be able to present a demonstration of such and such a state of society or of our own selves within our pespectives and perceptions. So, some aspects will appear to you to be Objective while some will seem more Subjective, and this could be the case EVEN IF neither of us is deceived by an evil demon.

Go ahead.

And I think you deduce that I'm not a deductive hack, although deduction does have its place.

First, we have to get into what objective "means."

Go ahead. Is objective v subjective really that much more complicated than knowledge v opinion? It might be tricky telling what's an opinion and what's knowledge, I guess. But I don't think the definitions are all that intricate, are they?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No offense, but I don't think you understand the appropriate times to roll your eyes at something, then. You roll your eyes at things other people say, not at the things you say. It's weird to roll your eyes at yourself, and it would be weird for me to infer that was what going on.

So, are you implying you'd rather have me be like everyone else, or maybe even 'stop' using emoticons altogether because it might be annoying to the sensibilities other individuals?

Go ahead.

Go ahead. Is objective v subjective really that much more complicated than knowledge v opinion? It might be tricky telling what's an opinion and what's knowledge, I guess. But I don't think the definitions are all that intricate, are they?

Actually, the definitions of both Subjectivity and Objectivity, as we're tempted to define them, can become trickier to pin down conceptually than one might think, Nick. We might consider that the term "objective," as it is more or less used (or overused) today, can often lead to a kind of perceptual parallax, especially among those who have a tendency to place blind faith in the present power and effectiveness of technology and/or science.

As Jens Zimmermann points out, somewhat in line with the likes of Pascal and Kierkegaard, with me tending to agree with them:

Our modern culture tends to think that real knowledge consists in quantification, that is, in the scientific numerical description of things in the world. On this account, objective truth requires an impersonal, theoretical stance toward things. Hermeneutic philosophers [such as me, 2PhiloVoid] contend, on the contrary, that our primary mode of perception is not theoretical but practical, and depends on our current desires or interests. (p. 8)​

And, Nick, it is this statement that more or less serves as the axiom of my position, even if in fact the epistemological position of the typical Hermeneutical philosopher doesn't comport with a Cartesian style of Deductive, Foundationalistic set of assumptions about knowledge and meaning. So, with the above quote in mind about the notion of Objectivity, that then leads us into the non-colloquial "meaning" of Subjectivity as it stands in opposition and in integration with Objectivity.

Of course, if you feel you must disagree that's fine by me, but realize we're both just barely scratching the surface on all of this.

Reference
Zimmermann, Jens. (2015). Hermeneutics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.

 

[Moral Orel]

So, are you implying you'd rather have me be like everyone else, or maybe even 'stop' using emoticons altogether because it might be annoying to the sensibilities other individuals?

Not because it's "annoying" but because it's confusing. It would be like using a word in a way that no one else defines it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not because it's "annoying" but because it's confusing. It would be like using a word in a way that no one else defines it.

So, I need to come up with, or find, a non-colloquial eye-roll emoticon? Is this what you're saying?

 

[Moral Orel]

Actually, the definitions of both Subjectivity and Objectivity, as we're tempted to define them, can become trickier to pin down conceptually than one might think, Nick. We might consider that the term "objective," as it is more or less used (or overused) today, can often lead to a kind of perceptual parallax, especially among those who have a tendency to place blind faith in the present power and effectiveness of technology and/or science.

As Jens Zimmermann points out, somewhat in line with the likes of Pascal and Kierkegaard, with me tending to agree with them:

Our modern culture tends to think that real knowledge consists in quantification, that is, in the scientific numerical description of things in the world. On this account, objective truth requires an impersonal, theoretical stance toward things. Hermeneutic philosophers [such as me, 2PhiloVoid] contend, on the contrary, that our primary mode of perception is not theoretical but practical, and depends on our current desires or interests. (p. 8)
And, Nick, it is this statement that more or less serves as the axiom of my position, even if in fact the epistemological position of the typical Hermeneutical philosopher doesn't comport with a Cartesian style of Deductive, Foundationalistic set of assumptions about knowledge and meaning. So, with the above quote in mind about the notion of Objectivity, that then leads us into the non-colloquial "meaning" of Subjectivity as it stands in opposition and in integration with Objectivity.

Of course, if you feel you must disagree that's fine by me, but realize we're both just barely scratching the surface on all of this.

Reference
Zimmermann, Jens. (2015). Hermeneutics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.

I'm afraid you're going to have to break this down more simply for me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm afraid you're going to have to break this down more simply for me.

...I thought I already did? And which part?

 

[Moral Orel]

...I thought I already did?

If that is as clarified as you get, I'm afraid your point is going to whiz right by me. You said we're just scratching the surface, go into more detail.

And which part?

The part I quoted.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If that is as clarified as you get, I'm afraid your point is going to whiz right by me. You said we're just scratching the surface, go into more detail.

The part I quoted.

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 ...

Ironically, 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.

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.

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