Philosophy: books and discussion

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

In that article, he reviews The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore. Blackmore is fantastic on the lecture circuit. Kennyc posted a wonderful TED Talk featuring her in another thread, perhaps he still has the link.

In fact it just came up again on another forum...

I think this is probably the one: http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_black...and_temes.html

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

The prevailing line of thought among Biblical scholars (to which I also subscribe) is that the first five books of the Hebrew Bible—traditionally ascribed to Moses' authorship—were in fact mainly composed by four different authors; the Yawist ("J"), the Elohist ("E"), the Deuteronomist ("D"), and the Priestly author ("P"), along with a later editor known as the Redactor, who put them all together. This is usually referred to as the "Documentary Hypothesis". In an entertaining and informative book put forth years ago by Harold Bloom and David Rosenberg, the authors put forth an interesting take on the Yawist. In "The Book of J", they state their belief that "J" was a woman who probably lived around the time of Soloman. They believe she composed the book not as holy scripture, but as fanciful history more in line with modern fairy tales.

Yes, I've heard/read about this theory/analysis.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Indeed. In Islam, we take evidence for our beliefs very seriously and there is a voluminous literature making the case for belief in God and in the Prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH). These arguments can be either purely rational (i.e. the Ontological argument for God's existence) or inductive (teleological arguments, arguments from the nature of the Qur'an, etc.). The previous poster may disagree with the cogency (or, in the case of the rational arguments, the validity or soundness) of the arguments, but they are arguments advance in good faith (so to speak) to make a rational case for belief that certain propositions are true. There is no suggestion of belief for belief's sake. That being said, many Muslim thinkers view Iman (faith or belief) as something more than mere intellectual assent that a proposition is true (this latter being known in Islamic logic (mantiq) as tasdeeq or assent). It is inextricably bound up with action in a manner similar to that suggested by the American Pragmatists Peirce and James. Peirce argued that Catholics don't really believe that the Host becomes the literal flesh and blood of Jesus (PBUH) because their actions do not betray any acceptance of this belief. In other words, if Catholics really believed that they were eating flesh and blood, there would be a profound emotional reaction, and likely disgust and disease, to this. Similarly, Pierce critiqued Descartes for his method of total doubt. He argued that it is impossible to doubt the existence of a writing desk while simultaneously writing on it. You may say the words, but this an act of deception. Thinkers of the Ashari school of Islamic theology have taken a similar view regarding belief: that, going beyond mere intellectual assent, it increases or decreases depending on one's actions. Religious belief is a bit more involved and complicated than many skeptics give it credit for. The problem is the incredible arrogance that often affects all sides of religious debate.

Luqman

Thanks for that wonderful and rational defense of your beliefs, Lugman.

I would disagree with Pierce's example of the writing desk in his critique of Descartes. I find it not at all difficult to believe someone might doubt the existence of the desk upon which they're writing. How do we know for certain that what we're presently experiencing is a moment of lucidity? For all we know, for one reason or another the table may be an hallucination. Then again, we may be dreaming. Are we always aware in the dream state that what we are experiencing is not, in fact, real? Are we butterflies dreaming that we're Chinese philosophers? Many's the time when I felt certain I had placed my car keys on a table or in a drawer, only to discover I was mistaken. From your own tradition; could a Jinn be deceiving us into believing black is white? As many experiments into the nature of memory reveal; I think our grasp on reality is much less tenacious that we normally care to admit. There have been many detractors upon Descartes cogito ergo sum over the years (Russell, as I recall, said that he would have been better to begin with the preposition "There are thoughts"); but the idea that the existence of a table upon which one is writing could not be doubted is, in my opinion, erroneous.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

In fact it just came up again on another forum...

I think this is probably the one: http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_black...and_temes.html

Thanks, Kenny. That's the one!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

... Peirce argued that Catholics don't really believe that the Host becomes the literal flesh and blood of Jesus (PBUH) because their actions do not betray any acceptance of this belief. In other words, if Catholics really believed that they were eating flesh and blood, there would be a profound emotional reaction, and likely disgust and disease, to this. ...

Luqman

Sharon Olds (Poet) on The Flesh and the Blood (at least partially):

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

... I find it not at all difficult to believe someone might doubt the existence of the desk upon which they're writing. How do we know for certain that what we're presently experiencing is a moment of lucidity? ... but the idea that the existence of a table upon which one is writing could not be doubted is, in my opinion, erroneous.

I would agree....The Matrix....lucid dreaming....hallucinations etc...The revision/modification of memories of events etc. All point to the ability of the brain and our senses to trick up. Still it's the only game in town, we must make the assumption that "most" of what we experience is real or at least is real to us, barring any external contradiction.

Reality is reality because multiple individuals agree on certain aspects of it. But there is also the possibility that those external individuals are nothing more than creations of our own deluded mind.

[GeoffC]

We only exist within the reality of our mind. Is everything around us, mere illusion...

[Sparrow]

Is it irrational to consider the possibility that I am illusory?

Authors create imaginary characters all the time; raise that ability a few orders of magnitude and you could have imaginary characters convinced that they are real - me (there's plenty of SF based on that idea).

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Thanks for that wonderful and rational defense of your beliefs, Lugman.

I would disagree with Pierce's example of the writing desk in his critique of Descartes. I find it not at all difficult to believe someone might doubt the existence of the desk upon which they're writing. How do we know for certain that what we're presently experiencing is a moment of lucidity? For all we know, for one reason or another the table may be an hallucination. Then again, we may be dreaming. Are we always aware in the dream state that what we are experiencing is not, in fact, real? Are we butterflies dreaming that we're Chinese philosophers? Many's the time when I felt certain I had placed my car keys on a table or in a drawer, only to discover I was mistaken. From your own tradition; could a Jinn be deceiving us into believing black is white? As many experiments into the nature of memory reveal; I think our grasp on reality is much less tenacious that we normally care to admit. There have been many detractors upon Descartes cogito ergo sum over the years (Russell, as I recall, said that he would have been better to begin with the preposition "There are thoughts"); but the idea that the existence of a table upon which one is writing could not be doubted is, in my opinion, erroneous.

I think a thorough Piercean would say that it is the act of continuing to use the desk while maintaining a verbal claim to doubt its existence that is illegitimate. If you were really seized by a doubt that the desk was there, would you lean on it? Would you trust it with your safety? You may in fact begin to doubt that one is really sitting at a desk and writing, but the companion of that realization is a cessation of activity involving the things which you doubt. My old philosophy Professor would make a distinction between Piercean (or living) doubt and Cartesian (or intellectual) doubt. Perhaps that distinction needs to be maintained, although I don't the latter is really in line with experience reality of 'living' doubt. The intensity of confusion, of having lost one's way, of dizziness and nausea are hall-marks of living doubt missing in Cartesian doubt.

Luqman

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

We only exist within the reality of our mind. Is everything around us, mere illusion...

While that is an interesting thought, I'm not sure I get the sense of it. Presumably, we ARE our minds; how can we live inside them as if they were external to us? There is also an old objection to the idea that everything around us is illusion: if that were the case, the term 'illusion' would have no meaning, because there is no true, external world to measure it against.

Luqman

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

There is also an old objection to the idea that everything around us is illusion: if that were the case, the term 'illusion' would have no meaning, because there is no true, external world to measure it against.

Ok, I'm lost, sorry. .
I'm not clear how knowing what an 'illusion' is disproves solipsism.

Can't the internal world contain illusions? We see magic illusions, films on screens all producing illusions - yet they could all be part of our internal illusion.

Can't we have illusions within illusions?

Mind you, if solipsism was true I'd already know all this stuff, and wouldn't have to ask.

[kennyc]

Oops, almost replied to my own posting....don't recognize my own avatar or writing apparently, does that mean I'm an illusion or figment of my imagination?

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Oops, almost replied to my own posting....don't recognize my own avatar or writing apparently, does that mean I'm an illusion or figment of my imagination?

Hmm. Were you going to agree or disagree with yourself?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

Hmm. Were you going to agree or disagree with yourself?

Most likely disagree Strongly!

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Ok, I'm lost, sorry. .
I'm not clear how knowing what an 'illusion' is disproves solipsism.

Can't the internal world contain illusions? We see magic illusions, films on screens all producing illusions - yet they could all be part of our internal illusion.

Can't we have illusions within illusions?

Mind you, if solipsism was true I'd already know all this stuff, and wouldn't have to ask.

It's somewhat different from solipsism. According to solipsism, only I exist. If we are all trapped in illusions, there could still be an external world. We could all be trapped in illusions, but without any access to the external world we would have no way of knowing. Illusion only has meaning when contrasted against reality. If _everything_ is illusion, there is no reality with which to contrast it and concept loses its meaning.

Luqman