Is philosophy dead?

[yougene]

mathematical axioms are not based on physical observations or personal experiences, and what do spiritual experiences have to do with any of this?

Then what is it based on then.

Subjective:
1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.

Objective:
1. Having actual existence or reality.
2. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
3. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

by definition objective reality is that part of reality which we all percieve the same independent of our personal dispositions, it's what we can all agree on. subjective experiences or "perspectives" cannot be objective because they are particular to a given person, they vary between individuals.

Everyone has the potential to view and explore "objective" reality. It's a point of view that anyone can take on and be on the same page. With that said how is that different from many other subjective experiences though? People can also be on the same page in perspectives that wouldn't traditionally be considered objective.


A subjective experience doesn't have to be limited to one person.

how does logic confine someone? how is exercising reason being overconfident in your beliefs? if anything, it prevents you from assuming subjective beliefs as true when they are unsupported by empirical evidence or logic.

I am not talking about logic I am talking about over confidence in beliefs and its effects.

reason demands that you deliberately scrutinize and question anything before you accept it as true. reason also demands that you reconsider beliefs you formerly held as true if you are presented with a logical and valid counter argument.

Right but this can be a bit tricky if you are so set in your beliefs to where you subconsciously interpret information and memories selectively.

how else would you derive truth? through revelations given to you by god? through mythos as people did before empirical science was invented? through arbitrary assumptions? by believing that which is irrational to believe in?

By exploring multiple perspectives. Assuming different sets of axioms, seeing how different sets of axioms correlate with each other, etc... There is much to learn about "objective" reality through exploring subjectivity and vice versa.

 

[thursday]

Then what is it based on then.

a priori deductions, kinda like math. we know that a(b + c) = ab+ac without making any kind of physical observations, just like we know that if A->B, and not B, then not A. we all have an intuitive sense of logic and reason that guides us. that's how we determine if something makes sense or not. some people are better at exercising this mental faculty than others. and some people just choose not to exercise reason.

Everyone has the potential to view and explore "objective" reality. It's a point of view that anyone can take on and be on the same page. With that said how is that different from many other subjective experiences though? People can also be on the same page in perspectives that wouldn't traditionally be considered objective.

A subjective experience doesn't have to be limited to one person.

people can share the same subjective beliefs, yes. but that doesn't make that belief objective or true universally. so multiple people can have chocolate as their favorite flavor of icecream, but that doesn't mean that chocolate is everyone's favorite flavor of icescream.

I am not talking about logic I am talking about over confidence in beliefs and its effects.

uh... well i was talking about logic.

Right but this can be a bit tricky if you are so set in your beliefs to where you subconsciously interpret information and memories selectively.

and this happens when people exercise reason?

By exploring multiple perspectives. Assuming different sets of axioms, seeing how different sets of axioms correlate with each other, etc... There is much to learn about "objective" reality through exploring subjectivity and vice versa.

it's perfectly reasonable to explore multiple perspectives. there's nothing wrong with that. and when you explore them you apply reason to them and see how well they stand up to logical scrutiny. you don't assume axioms though. axioms should be proven or logically supported. just assuming things will easily mislead you. and yes you can learn about objective reality by exploring subjectivity by determining what part of reality is subjective and what is not. but you cannot use logically unsupported subjective beliefs to assume things about objective reality. that would be as inappropriate as trying to use science to define subjective feelings or experiences.

 

[yougene]

people can share the same subjective beliefs, yes. but that doesn't make that belief objective or true universally. so multiple people can have chocolate as their favorite flavor of icecream, but that doesn't mean that chocolate is everyone's favorite flavor of icescream.

I was thinking more on the order of group hallucinations and delusions. These are so real to the point where one can infer what the other is thinking, percieving.

uh... well i was talking about logic.

Why? My statement obviously wasn't specifically about logic and your statement was irrelevant.

and this happens when people exercise reason?

This is where many people end up. In the end they are just like fundamentalist s, so confident in their beliefs that they are blinded by it.

it's perfectly reasonable to explore multiple perspectives. there's nothing wrong with that. and when you explore them you apply reason to them and see how well they stand up to logical scrutiny. you don't assume axioms though. axioms should be proven or logically supported. just assuming things will easily mislead you.

It is a possibility yes. But I'm not talking about just pulling random axioms out of my ass and trying as hard as I can to believe them.

and yes you can learn about objective reality by exploring subjectivity by determining what part of reality is subjective and what is not. but you cannot use logically unsupported subjective beliefs to assume things about objective reality. that would be as inappropriate as trying to use science to define subjective feelings or experiences.

Problem with that is, sometimes things that can make logical sense seem illogical without experience/observations. For example the purposefully contradictory nature of Buddhist teachings seem illogical, but are based on observations of reality that I as well as many others have observed.

 

[thursday]

I was thinking more on the order of group hallucinations and delusions. These are so real to the point where one can infer what the other is thinking, percieving.

and this is how you propose people should discover truth as opposed to exercising reason?

Why? My statement obviously wasn't specifically about logic and your statement was irrelevant.

well... because you were responding to my statement that the exercise of reason is essential to gaining true knowledge.

This is where many people end up. In the end they are just like fundamentalist s, so confident in their beliefs that they are blinded by it.

i think you're just projecting your own biases towards rational thought and logic in an ungrounded generalization. logic does not lead people to be close-minded. logic makes people critical. that means they may reject beliefs which do not follow a logical line of reasoning or is unsupported by objective observations, but this is very different from fundamentalism. without this ability to be critical about information and knowledge in an objective manner, we would not have the scientific developments we have today. being stubbornly close-minded however is an illogical action as i said before.

It is a possibility yes. But I'm not talking about just pulling random axioms out of my ass and trying as hard as I can to believe them.

then what are you talking about?

Problem with that is, sometimes things that can make logical sense seem illogical without experience/observations. For example the purposefully contradictory nature of Buddhist teachings seem illogical, but are based on observations of reality that I as well as many others have observed.

philosophical beliefs are subjective, but the beliefs themsevles are usually structured around some line of logic. and if you interpret something which is perfectly logical as illogical then that just means:
a.) it isn't truly logical
or
b.) it is logical and you just don't grasp the logic
or
c.) you are talking about something based on a subjective experience which you happen to have experienced differently. then this is not an objective or universal truth in the first place but may apply to the experiences of individuals.

if you adopt buddhism because it makes sense to you, then you are exercising reason, just like if you don't adopt buddhism because it doesn't make sense to you.

 

[ebola?]

>>logic is not a phenomenological observation. it's not something we construct either. we don't "choose" axioms, we discover them.>>

I disagree. We choose, and we may choose otherwise. I think we may have to agree to disagree, as we likely have VERY different metaphysical perspectives.

>>perhaps you need to take a course on formal logic and learn where these axioms are actually derived. and i don't think you understand what "excluded middle" actuallly refers to. it doesn't mean what you think it means.>>

I have a bachelors in philosophy and have taken a course in formal logic (and the philosophy OF logic), focusing on the use and basis of quantified first-order logic. Several possible epistemological bases for logic were given, one such beign similar to your perspective, and one such being similar to mine. I have also taken a pertinent course in the philosophy of concepts, and studied the Kantian position you appear to be arguing in a course on German philosophy. I know what the principle of excluded middle means. So, yeah. Enough with the presumptuous snipes at levels of education.

ebola

 

[thursday]

then why is it so hard for you to understand that when you are talking about a binary or bivalent system, it is only logical for a value to be either true or false and not both or neither? and you can't use a non-bivalent system as an example because that's not what bivalence and excluded-middle applies to.

and if you think that we choose what axioms we assume to be correct based on subjective experiences, then why is it that mathematicians all agree on the same basic axioms of mathematics? why is it that most philosophers agree on the basic axioms of formal logic?

i don't have a bachelors in philosophy, and in fact i'm only a 2nd year computer science major, but i've learned enough about formal logic and seen enough proofs for basic theorems in math and logic to know that these things aren't just arbitrarily chosen based on experience. they are only accepted by the academic community through proofs which are rigorously peer reviewed by other academics.

if you claim that excluded middle is not inherently true in a binary system then you're going to have to give me a logical proof of why that is. and if you can come up with one you'd probably recieve many accolades from the academic community. but it's not as simple as, this native american tribe believed in a spirit with both human and non-human traits. that hardly presents a paradox, and it doesn't apply at all to the argument.

 

[ebola?]

>> then why is it so hard for you to understand that when you are talking about a binary or bivalent system, it is only logical for a value to be either true or false and not both or neither? and you can't use a non-bivalent system as an example because that's not what bivalence and excluded-middle applies to.>>

Ah. I failed to make myself clear here. I was not trying to argue against the internal validity of bivalent systems of logic by bringing in extraneous examples. What I was trying to argue, however, is that we are on shakey ground to argue that such a bivalent system of logic is "objectively valid". While it may be the case that such a system is internally valid, yielding valid conclusions from true premises (now, there are some kinks to this picture. First order logic shows some internal contradictions. See also Godel), the existence of alternative systems which may be built via alternative axioms (or experience which lies outside of the scope of logic entirely) suggests that bivalent logic is not true a priori/objectively.

>>and if you think that we choose what axioms we assume to be correct based on subjective experiences, then why is it that mathematicians all agree on the same basic axioms of mathematics? why is it that most philosophers agree on the basic axioms of formal logic?>>

I don't. While I don't think that logic is valid a priori, I do not think that it is created via subjective whims either. Logic is interactionally emergent. That is, within the human organism-environment interaction, certain tool emerge as useful to us. One such set of tools are the logics we use. Now, at the same time, the use of a particular system of logic (or any other conceptual framework) will in turn shape intersubjective reality itself. To get a firmer idea of what I'm talking about, I'd suggest taking a look at John Dewey's metaphysics or Quines "On the Two Dogmas of Empiricism".

>>i don't have a bachelors in philosophy, and in fact i'm only a 2nd year computer science major, but i've learned enough about formal logic and seen enough proofs for basic theorems in math and logic to know that these things aren't just arbitrarily chosen based on experience. they are only accepted by the academic community through proofs which are rigorously peer reviewed by other academics.>>

Firstly, I should make clear that I wasn't trying to throw your credentials into question. It's really a meaningless issue. The point is not how much schooling you've been through. The point is the ideas you bring to the table. I was just...well, answering your request that I take a course in logic . Moving on, I would argue that these proofs are, again, internally valid, and these particular systems are adopted because the "work".

ebola

 

[thursday]

well, i guess i'd have to read some of the texts you've suggested to get a better understanding of what you are saying. i've only heard of godel and haven't actually read anything he's written. but i still think that saying logic is subjective is a rather extreme position to be taking, atleast in the common meaning of the word 'subjective.' i think many people would interpret what you are saying as meaning that mankind's switch from explaining and trying to understand things through logos and empirical methods is no more valid than the employing of mythos to explain the universe as people have done in the past.

 

[Drake Dracoli]

Yes.

 

[knight_marshall]

its a fair way of looking at it... if you wanna end up that way.

 

[ebola?]

>> but i still think that saying logic is subjective is a rather extreme position to be taking, atleast in the common meaning of the word 'subjective.' i think many people would interpret what you are saying as meaning that mankind's switch from explaining and trying to understand things through logos and empirical methods is no more valid than the employing of mythos to explain the universe as people have done in the past.>>

Well, there is a specific reason why I avoided using the term "subjective". While these systems of knowledge (logic being one of them) are constructed in the ongoing organism-environment interaction, they are not constructed haphazardly. Rather, we put our knowledge to the test continually, adopting what "works" (that is, that which serves as means towards attending ends in view) and shedding that which does not. Knowledge that is inconsistent with experience does not "work" (at least by most relevant criteria). In other words, scientific methods through their empirical verification prove themselves more valid than myth and conjecture.

ebola