Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Original sin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by siam View Post
    Aristotle....

    I can't comment for Christianity, but in the case of Islam, it could mean so...because nature is considered divine revelation as is the the Quran and the natural living and non-living organisms/matter are considered "muslim" as in ---they follow God's laws (natural law/physics)
    Which is why Aristotle (and Plato) was/were popular in Islamic philosophy....Al Kindi, Al Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd wrote and commented on Aristotle.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/
    Learning from humans isn't what is meant by divine revelation.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Learning from humans isn't what is meant by divine revelation.
      Unless those humans were inspired by God - or the pagan gods in Aristotle's case.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Learning from humans isn't what is meant by divine revelation.
        They can be divinely inspired in the light of natural reason.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          They can be divinely inspired in the light of natural reason.
          That is a bit of a contradiction, yes? Inspired to seek out the secrets of nature isn't the same thing as nature being divinely revealed.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            Learning from humans isn't what is meant by divine revelation.
            From the Muslim perspective---the Quran is a divine revelation and Tafsir(exegesis) is the interpretation that leads to understanding. Likewise, nature is a divine revelation and science is its tafsir---interpreting nature that leads to understanding.
            That is what Aristotle was trying to do right?---observing/interpreting "nature" in order to understand it....

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              I think you may be misunderstanding what I am saying. I don't think Rawls is suggesting that people will or should abandon their comprehensive doctrines in favor of an actual ecumenical doctrine. I believe that what Rawls is arguing for is for a procedural, not a substantive, ecumenical space. Let's say that you have a diverse society like India or the U.K. or the U.S. with many different ethnic and religious groups that must live closely together. How can such a society best function? Rawls's idea was the veil of ignorance, which is not my idea and not an idea that I am advocating, although I find it intriguing, but i don't claim to know enough about it to say whether it is the best solution to such problems. With the Veil, then diverse places can have a chance of fostering a civic sphere of public tolerance while at the same time allowing and even encouraging various ethnic and religious groups to pursue their individual cultural practices. There is nothing about homogenization in Rawls that I am aware of; the only trait that Rawls might say unequivocally should not be tolerated is the intolerant aspects of individual cultural practices that would prevent practitioners of other belief systems from being able to exist and thrive! But we can all agree, can't we, that intolerance of intolerance is the admission for entrance into modern heterogeneous societies?
              U said---"With the Veil, then diverse places can have a chance of fostering a civic sphere of public tolerance while at the same time allowing and even encouraging various ethnic and religious groups to pursue their individual cultural practices."
              I am not sure I agree with this aspect of our discussion---this divorce of ethics/morals from religio-philosophies.
              ---to me, religion should not be "culture"---but a more robust way of engaging with life---religio-philosophies should provide answers to deep human questions such as our purpose on earth and what we can do to achieve this purpose, the definition of being human/humane and the "way" of life both as individuals and groups. This metaphyics aspect should be the starting point of our ethico-moral philosophizing and this should lead to metaethics---the core values that will determine the actual normative ethical positions for a given group. (I also include non-theistic philosophies such as humanism, secularism...etc in the religio-philosophies category because regardless of of the existence of God---our understanding of the metaphyisical questions will/should determine our normative ethics...therefore the definition of "religio-philosophy" is broad). However this means acknowledging that secularism is not the "neutral" space as imagined today---but simply another religio-philosophy.


              I agree with you---both about the procedural space and about the veil of ignorance being an intriguing idea but with reservations.
              AI/deep learning is an interesting field that is rapidly growing because of state interest in human behavior and surveillance. (AI vs human in games such as chess, go, poker ...etc) While this system (AI algorithms) has a good chance of being abused, the idea that there may be a way to understand human behavior through formula is interesting. If sets of values voluntarily agreed upon by a large group were graded/weighted and input to a formula (creating a transparency that could prevent abuse) could that generate ethico-moral behavioural outcomes?....If we were to consider such a direction to organizing our ethico-moral systems...would we be able to have more consistent and coherent ethico-moral systems that could be analyzed and used in the formation of laws (social and legal) and the conveyance of justice?.....

              https://www.analyticsinsight.net/pre...deep-learning/
              https://medium.com/@chataks93/predic...m-fff9030b82e7

              U said---" Let's say that you have a diverse society like India or the U.K. or the U.S. with many different ethnic and religious groups that must live closely together. How can such a society best function?" That is what I am thinking about....but on a global scale...not just the national level....especially if we r to consider that national borders may be more porus or perhaps non-existent in the future...especially now that many countries offer multiple citizenships and/or resident status---an individual can be part of multiple different "spaces" . Mostly I am bouncing off ideas here...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by siam View Post
                From the Muslim perspective---the Quran is a divine revelation and Tafsir(exegesis) is the interpretation that leads to understanding. Likewise, nature is a divine revelation and science is its tafsir---interpreting nature that leads to understanding.
                That is what Aristotle was trying to do right?---observing/interpreting "nature" in order to understand it....
                But to call nature, and what it reveals to the scientist, divine, is simply to assume god. Einstein concluded through his long and hard work that the energy of an object equals its mass times the speed of light, that gravity was equivelant to the warps in the fabric of space caused by objects within it. Now, I suppose one could conclude that the inspiration to seek and find these secrets of nature out came from god, but for what reason should one believe that, other than as an assumption? Lets assume god doesn't exist, could not an Einstein be just as inspired to understand the nature of existence.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  But to call nature, and what it reveals to the scientist, divine, is simply to assume god. Einstein concluded through his long and hard work that the energy of an object equals its mass times the speed of light, that gravity was equivelant to the warps in the fabric of space caused by objects within it. Now, I suppose one could conclude that the inspiration to seek and find these secrets of nature out came from god, but for what reason should one believe that, other than as an assumption? Lets assume god doesn't exist, could not an Einstein be just as inspired to understand the nature of existence.
                  yes.

                  The human mind works best with "patterns"...u show it a splotch of ink and it will decipher patterns and meanings to understand it. Likewise, when we encounter pieces of knowledge---we try to put it in a bigger whole to understand it. We can assume the human mind was created as it was because of "God" or because of "Nature" (capital "N"). Modern science uses the "Nature" metaphysic assumption as a starting point, Islamic science used "God" metaphysic as the starting assumption. What both mean by the different terms is that there is an underlying "Force" of balance and unity that is embedded in the foundation of the Universe (...as in the Quran also, for Muslims)

                  From the Islamic perspective, the terms knowledge and light (enlightenment) are connected/connections with "God". So, Aristotle, a non-Muslim philosopher could be "enlightened" as can the Buddha or Einstein....because God, the most compassionate and merciful is the creator of ALL humanity---not just Muslims. However, how we (humanity) fit the pieces of knowledge together into a whole is upto us/our choice. We can fit it into a wholistic ethico-moral framework with God as the starting metaphysic assumption or we could fit it into "Nature" which does not yet have a robust, wholistic ethico-moral framework...(its still a work-in-progress?). The more choices we have of our metaphyical foundations....the more diversity of thought leading to more creative solutions?...as long as the methodology is transparent and consistent.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by siam View Post
                    yes.

                    The human mind works best with "patterns"...u show it a splotch of ink and it will decipher patterns and meanings to understand it. Likewise, when we encounter pieces of knowledge---we try to put it in a bigger whole to understand it. We can assume the human mind was created as it was because of "God" or because of "Nature" (capital "N"). Modern science uses the "Nature" metaphysic assumption as a starting point, Islamic science used "God" metaphysic as the starting assumption. What both mean by the different terms is that there is an underlying "Force" of balance and unity that is embedded in the foundation of the Universe (...as in the Quran also, for Muslims)

                    From the Islamic perspective, the terms knowledge and light (enlightenment) are connected/connections with "God". So, Aristotle, a non-Muslim philosopher could be "enlightened" as can the Buddha or Einstein....because God, the most compassionate and merciful is the creator of ALL humanity---not just Muslims. However, how we (humanity) fit the pieces of knowledge together into a whole is upto us/our choice. We can fit it into a wholistic ethico-moral framework with God as the starting metaphysic assumption or we could fit it into "Nature" which does not yet have a robust, wholistic ethico-moral framework...(its still a work-in-progress?). The more choices we have of our metaphyical foundations....the more diversity of thought leading to more creative solutions?...as long as the methodology is transparent and consistent.
                    When you say the more choices we have, I assume you to mean the two choices we have, i.e either god or nature, god being the authur of the underlying wholistic ethico-moral framework and Nature which has no underlying wholistic ethico-moral framework. Do you have a sound reason for believing the former to be true, rather than the latter? In other words why assume that knowledge, enlightenment, concerning the nature of the existence that we are naturally connected to, has anything to do with connectedness to god? I mean, even if you were more comforted by that idea, why is it the more logical conclusion to make?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      When you say the more choices we have, I assume you to mean the two choices we have, i.e either god or nature, god being the authur of the underlying wholistic ethico-moral framework and Nature which has no underlying wholistic ethico-moral framework. Do you have a sound reason for believing the former to be true, rather than the latter? In other words why assume that knowledge, enlightenment, concerning the nature of the existence that we are naturally connected to, has anything to do with connectedness to god? I mean, even if you were more comforted by that idea, why is it the more logical conclusion to make?
                      No
                      ...I mean multiple choices....

                      Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheisms have particular concepts of God/Force...but there are other philosophies such as Neo-confucianism, Tao, various Buddhisms and the variety of Hinduisms....etc...that have their own metaphysic assumptions from which they can extract human purpose and define "human". All should have a chance of forming ethico-moral systems that make sense within their greater metaphysic and metaethic foundation.

                      The assumption today is that if we take God/Force out of consideration---we will arrive at a neutral ground/space in which all contributions to meta-ethics will be "equal". But this cannot create equality simply because it privileges the non-theistic philosophical metaphysics as the default.

                      Why do we need metaphysics to ground metaethics?---because unless there is a good methodology built on understandable and clear framework---normative "ethics" can become arbitrary rules of convenience for those in power. For example, as soon as it was convenient---the U.S. government chose to make torture of civilians and war captives "lawful" disregarding the Geneva conventions that decided torture as immoral/unethical conduct. (And ISIS/Taliban...etc are also an example....)
                      So...why is torture unethical at one point in time and "ethical" in another?...to answer this question consistently---we need metaethics to be formed and grounded within a consistent metaphyisic philosophical framework.

                      for example---Christianity and Islam have different definitions of "Human"---For Christians it is at the time of conception that one becomes "human" while for Muslims it is at the time of ensoulment. This difference in definition impacts the use of stem cell research/embryonic stem cells in medicine and has ramifications in bioethics. Ethics is clearly linked to values and our values are shaped by how we see "us" and our purpose in the world.
                      https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...eligious-lens/
                      Last edited by siam; 12-23-2019, 09:14 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        That is a bit of a contradiction, yes? Inspired to seek out the secrets of nature isn't the same thing as nature being divinely revealed.
                        Within a theistic framework, human reason is a gift of God and nature is God's creation. But there's no compelling reason to choose or assume a theistic over a non-theistic framework.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by siam View Post
                          U said---"With the Veil, then diverse places can have a chance of fostering a civic sphere of public tolerance while at the same time allowing and even encouraging various ethnic and religious groups to pursue their individual cultural practices."
                          I am not sure I agree with this aspect of our discussion---this divorce of ethics/morals from religio-philosophies.
                          I'm not sure how you're getting that I'm advocating a "divorce of ethics/morals from religio-philosophies." Rawls is merely proposing a way for adherents of diverse ethical/moral and religio/philosophical systems to be able to live together peacefully. It's procedural (not killing of harming others or interfering with their expression of their beliefsjust as we would not want others to do such things to us.)

                          ---to me, religion should not be "culture"---but a more robust way of engaging with life---religio-philosophies should provide answers to deep human questions such as our purpose on earth and what we can do to achieve this purpose, the definition of being human/humane and the "way" of life both as individuals and groups. This metaphyics aspect should be the starting point of our ethico-moral philosophizing and this should lead to metaethics---the core values that will determine the actual normative ethical positions for a given group. (I also include non-theistic philosophies such as humanism, secularism...etc in the religio-philosophies category because regardless of of the existence of God---our understanding of the metaphyisical questions will/should determine our normative ethics...therefore the definition of "religio-philosophy" is broad). However this means acknowledging that secularism is not the "neutral" space as imagined today---but simply another religio-philosophy.
                          I agree with all of this and don't see how what I've written contradicts any of it. All Rawls is saying is that when you have diverse groups with diverse belief systems living together, the Veil is a thought experiment to help get them to carve out a public space of mutual tolerance without affecting their own beliefs. If it does affect their own beliefs, if intrinsic to their beliefs is the doctrine, say, of killing enslaving or converting all infidels, what happens when they have to live next to another religious group with the same doctrines? Society cannot function under the logic of "might makes right," even if a group believes it is murdering under the mandate of Heaven. Modern diverse societies must function procedurally in a certain way and must respect certain basic norms.


                          I agree with you---both about the procedural space and about the veil of ignorance being an intriguing idea but with reservations.
                          AI/deep learning is an interesting field that is rapidly growing because of state interest in human behavior and surveillance. (AI vs human in games such as chess, go, poker ...etc) While this system (AI algorithms) has a good chance of being abused, the idea that there may be a way to understand human behavior through formula is interesting. If sets of values voluntarily agreed upon by a large group were graded/weighted and input to a formula (creating a transparency that could prevent abuse) could that generate ethico-moral behavioural outcomes?....If we were to consider such a direction to organizing our ethico-moral systems...would we be able to have more consistent and coherent ethico-moral systems that could be analyzed and used in the formation of laws (social and legal) and the conveyance of justice?.....

                          https://www.analyticsinsight.net/pre...deep-learning/
                          https://medium.com/@chataks93/predic...m-fff9030b82e7
                          I'm very skeptical of Ai being applicable to human behavior in a very meaningful way. Prediction on a mass scale is only a statistical abstraction and probably useful mainly for control and surveillance as in authoritarian regimes.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by siam View Post
                            No
                            ...I mean multiple choices....

                            Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheisms have particular concepts of God/Force...but there are other philosophies such as Neo-confucianism, Tao, various Buddhisms and the variety of Hinduisms....etc...that have their own metaphysic assumptions from which they can extract human purpose and define "human". All should have a chance of forming ethico-moral systems that make sense within their greater metaphysic and metaethic foundation.

                            The assumption today is that if we take God/Force out of consideration---we will arrive at a neutral ground/space in which all contributions to meta-ethics will be "equal". But this cannot create equality simply because it privileges the non-theistic philosophical metaphysics as the default.

                            Why do we need metaphysics to ground metaethics?---because unless there is a good methodology built on understandable and clear framework---normative "ethics" can become arbitrary rules of convenience for those in power. For example, as soon as it was convenient---the U.S. government chose to make torture of civilians and war captives "lawful" disregarding the Geneva conventions that decided torture as immoral/unethical conduct. (And ISIS/Taliban...etc are also an example....)
                            So...why is torture unethical at one point in time and "ethical" in another?...to answer this question consistently---we need metaethics to be formed and grounded within a consistent metaphyisic philosophical framework.

                            for example---Christianity and Islam have different definitions of "Human"---For Christians it is at the time of conception that one becomes "human" while for Muslims it is at the time of ensoulment. This difference in definition impacts the use of stem cell research/embryonic stem cells in medicine and has ramifications in bioethics. Ethics is clearly linked to values and our values are shaped by how we see "us" and our purpose in the world.
                            https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...eligious-lens/
                            And so what if there is no god to ground metaehtics? What if we are just part of a natural world and what is right and wrong is dependent upon that which is in our overall best interests in relationship to the world we live in. That doesn't mean that it's arbitrary rules, it just means that we don't know what it is that may ultimately be in our best interests and so therefore we often get it wrong.

                            For instance, we may believe torture to be the right thing to do, we might believe torture to be in our best interests, but be wrong. Or vice versa, we might think torture to be the wrong thing to do, we might believe that torture is not ultimately in our best interests, and also be wrong about that. But that doesn't mean that one of those options isn't the right thing to do, and that the other is the wrong thing to do in the best interests of humanity as a whole. It just means we don't know, we haven't figured out whats best.

                            I don't see how putting god into the picture changes anything. Ethics still comes down to ourselves trying to figure out what is in our overall best interests, i.e. what is in our best interests as a human society living together in this natural world we happen to be a part of.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              And so what if there is no god to ground metaehtics? What if we are just part of a natural world and what is right and wrong is dependent upon that which is in our overall best interests in relationship to the world we live in. That doesn't mean that it's arbitrary rules, it just means that we don't know what it is that may ultimately be in our best interests and so therefore we often get it wrong.

                              For instance, we may believe torture to be the right thing to do, we might believe torture to be in our best interests, but be wrong. Or vice versa, we might think torture to be the wrong thing to do, we might believe that torture is not ultimately in our best interests, and also be wrong about that. But that doesn't mean that one of those options isn't the right thing to do, and that the other is the wrong thing to do in the best interests of humanity as a whole. It just means we don't know, we haven't figured out whats best.

                              I don't see how putting god into the picture changes anything. Ethics still comes down to ourselves trying to figure out what is in our overall best interests, i.e. what is in our best interests as a human society living together in this natural world we happen to be a part of.
                              I agree that God doesn't necessarily add anything to the moral force of what is right or wrong. But it may also be true that what is right and wrong doesn't just depend on what is in "our" ie humans' "best" interest. First of all, determining what "best" means is itself an ethical question, and secondly, there may be other moral considerations than just what effects humans, such as all sentient life forms.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                1) I'm not sure how you're getting that I'm advocating a "divorce of ethics/morals from religio-philosophies." Rawls is merely proposing a way for adherents of diverse ethical/moral and religio/philosophical systems to be able to live together peacefully. It's procedural (not killing of harming others or interfering with their expression of their beliefsjust as we would not want others to do such things to us.)



                                2)I agree with all of this and don't see how what I've written contradicts any of it. All Rawls is saying is that when you have diverse groups with diverse belief systems living together, the Veil is a thought experiment to help get them to carve out a public space of mutual tolerance without affecting their own beliefs. If it does affect their own beliefs, if intrinsic to their beliefs is the doctrine, say, of killing enslaving or converting all infidels, what happens when they have to live next to another religious group with the same doctrines? Society cannot function under the logic of "might makes right," even if a group believes it is murdering under the mandate of Heaven. Modern diverse societies must function procedurally in a certain way and must respect certain basic norms.




                                3)I'm very skeptical of Ai being applicable to human behavior in a very meaningful way. Prediction on a mass scale is only a statistical abstraction and probably useful mainly for control and surveillance as in authoritarian regimes.
                                1) I agree that as a tool to understand our ethico-moral stance, "the veil of ignorance" is interesting. It can be one of many tools that diverse metaphysic philosophies employ...?....

                                2) Public space of mutual tolerance---I think "law" might be a better way to carve out such a space in a pluralistic society than the veil of ignorance? In the example you gave where different metaphysic positions create different degrees/weights of values, treaties can be made between groups to create peaceful spaces? Even today treaties and rules define the use of air, land,and sea spaces by multiple groups....

                                3) I agree with you...as long as humans behave predictably...predictions of human behavior are possible...but if they behave randomly...it can get tricky.....however, it is an interesting tool...just as the veil of ignorance thought experiment is....?....

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X