h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Pilgrim4Truth logging onto the Guild - "What is Truth?" ...Wait for

Wikipedia has a good entry on Jesting Pilate :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesting_Pilate

Pilgrim4Truth logging onto the Guild - "What is Truth?" ...Wait for

Wikipedia has a good entry on Jesting Pilate :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesting_Pilate

An interesting piece on the question of truth – looking at some post-modern thought and comparing it to others, in particular CS Lewis, can be found here :

http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/lewis-postmodernists.html

The positivist view of truth from A J Ayer: ‘A statement is directly verifiable if it is either an observation statement or is such that an observation statement is derivable from it in conjunction with another observation statement (or observation statements), such derivability not being possible from the conjoined observation statement(s) alone. And a statement is indirectly verifiable if, first, in conjunction with certain other premises it entails one or more directly verifiable statements that are not derivable from these other premises alone, and, second, that these other premises “do not include any statement that is not either analytic, or directly verifiable, or capable of being independently established as indirectly verifiable.’ (A J Ayer Language, Truth, and Logic 2nd ed. P. 17).

The post modern/anti-foundationalist position on truth: ‘The idea that truth is a correspondent between statements and objective reality has been subject to a great deal of criticism. Much of this criticism is based on confusion, in as much as the critics while often verbally rejecting positivism, still presuppose the positivistic equation of the meaning of a statement with the means of its verification’ (David Ray Griffen 1988 ‘The Re-enchantment of Science State University of New York Press, Albany).

So whilst the PoMo’s it maybe said are confused in their denial of objective truth, yet they adopt the foundation principles they wish to undermine. Nevertheless the positivists verification principle is effectively challenged for its foundation validity both empirically and/or analytically.

So what to say to the Jesting Pilate – ‘What is truth?’

The CS Lewis foundationalist position on truth: ‘We are at this very point asking whether a certain view of human thought is true. And the view in question is just the view that human thought is not true, not a reflection of reality. And this view is itself a thought. In other words, we are asking 'Is the thought that no thoughts are true, itself true?' If we answer ‘Yes,’ we contradict ourselves. For if all thoughts are untrue, then this thought is untrue. There is therefore no question of total skepticism about human thought. (CS Lewis ‘De Futilitate 61’ – Christian Reflections 1991)

Therefore we need to say there is truth or have no objective meaning to our thoughts. Does this mean we have to have faith in our reasoning? - To boldly and simply assert ‘I have truth’.

A well-grounded assertion is not available to establish a ground for all (other) assertions; but does this justify one ungrounded assertion?

Is it not wiser to allow that mental activity, including the making of general assertions, probably owes its form to the history of its growth? Objectivity is clearly an ideal, but is not something we should expect to have achieved, to a hundred per cent; ninety-nine-point-a-lot-of-nines will do well for now.

Is this not the most sensible answer to the otherwise intractable problem of the a priori?

Is there anything to be gained from an arbitrary decision, that is not overbalanced by the problems of dissent?

Good article though. As usual I replied before reading it.

Many questions.

We should build the 'truth' of the worldview we 'live-in' like we would with good physical architecture.

Bottom-up Thinking: brick by brick checking its consistent and coherent to a rational plan, things like plumbing and electrics have no room for disconnects.
Top-Down Thinking: The plan needs a purpose, for us to be comfortable and protected. So the top-down approach needs to deliver those aesthetic human needs, else you may find you have a utility soul-less apartment block - death by 25 years of social research (a Hawkwind lyric ).
Level Thinking: And finally it has to feel right to the person who lives there. Something personal.

A practical approach to building a worldview needs such a multi-level approach I think. Understanding that it's not perfect and open to improvement always. And it is important to build your own, and not just inherit some one else's (even though that maybe cheaper these days!).

Agreed?

Are 'observation statements' (i.e. descriptive statements?) verifiable? Can we not disagree that 'this wall is tall' is in fact an evaluative judgement (based on perspective)? This idea is easily open to reductivism that the table is "nothing but a complex set of atoms arranged in space". Space is infinitely divisible which is why reductivism in its must extreme form doesn't work, as there are always smaller things we can find.

I think its pretty well established that we do not have access to the way the world really is because we can't have experience independant of ourselves, which always mean that we have a certain perspective on the idea of what things mean.

Also, this point seems contradictory

'A statement is directly verifiable if it is either an observation statement or is such that an observation statement is derivable from it in conjunction with another observation statement (or observation statements), such derivability not being possible from the conjoined observation statement(s) alone and, second, that these other premises “do not include any statement that is not either analytic, or directly verifiable, or capable of being independently established as indirectly verifiable.’ (A J Ayer Language, Truth, and Logic 2nd ed. P. 17).'

It would be more useful to split the different 'observation statements' up. I would say

''A statement is directly verifiable if it (the statement), is either an observation statement(call this OS 1) or (the statement), is such that an observation statement (OS) is derivable from it (the statement) in conjunction with another observation statement (OS 3) (or observation statements), such derivability not being possible from the conjoined object statements (OS 2 and/or 3) alone''


X is true if X = Y
or
X is true when X leads to x(1) -/IN CONJUNCTION WITH x(2)/- and when x(1)& x(2)= ~Y

X A statement (of any kind?)
Y= An observation statement
x(1) Another statement (must be analytic, directly verifiable, or capable of being independently established as indirectly verifiable)
x(2) = As above

Do x(1) and x(2) have to be different to X?
The problem here lies between the different type of statements and their untangling. Here we must be careful of tripping over the language.

Ayer's view, I believe, is not expressed very clearly at all (by himself). Could someone please explain to be what it means?

<>
Isn't this thinking "within the box"
If we start by assuming that there are some fixed things then it is harder to innovate. E.g. maybe we could have disconnects in plumbing with water coming from more than one source - grey water for flushing, clean water for drinking - rainwater for the garden.

With power it could be the same. The windmill on the roof powering one thing, the solar panels powering something else and the mains for whatever is left.

Generally the numbers of people we have squeezed into the living space we have depend on systems that deliver homogenised services to all. Individualised thinking may undermine this. One internal combustion engine is a brilliant idea. One for every street is probably still a good idea. Two or three per household and we're killing ourselves.

People who do live really unique lifestyles are generally considered deviant by society - even if we know that if we all lived that way the world would be a nicer place to live in. Maybe we also know subconsciously that that level of independence woudl require poorer people to forego even more of the little they have.

Vestboy,

I don't disagree with any of the options and choices. It kind of illustrates my point that there are many choices that individuals make. And there is a richness in that (even if I like things my way in the end for the place I like to live in - I still prefer to have other ways at looking at things, so that I can grow my perspective)

However my description of a house architecture was an allegory to recumbentman's questions, based on my earlier question "What is truth?"

What I was trying to say is that a certain mono-mode approach to truth in ones worldview based on a certain approach (e.g., logical positivism, that in my terms is a bottom up reductive approach) risks creating a 'living space' no one but a utlitarian verificationist might want to live in (some would - but must would not). I prefer a multi-level approach that gets the bottom-up 'basics right' whilst also building things that appeal to my non rational feelings of meaning, that needs a top-down or level (subjective) way at looking at things.

Still your response illustrates the plethora of view on living spaces architecture! And I am for that (even if I like a "thatched cottage in the cotwolds")

Does that make any sense to you?

It does. I think I got carried away with a percieved flaw in your allegory. Of course allegories are to help people to see the picture in a way they can understand and I did completely understand you - so I was probably being a bit pedantic/obtuse.

I do agree with the allegorical point that some people would contrive a space that only they could live in.

Nick_em,

Let me try, in a really simple way (that appeals to me and probably no one else).

Ayer is saying "better to say nothing unless you can verify it as empirically or analytically true - it's not that something has no truth if it does not fit that verification pinciple, but that it's not a proper question even to be expected to be responded to intelligently - in that sense the statement is 'nonsense'"

In that way it follows a kind of Wittgenstein TLP approach. Wittgenstein influenced the Vienna circle in this way (Ayer being a pincipal of that movement), but when Wittgenstein revised his ideas in PI the Vienna circle did not update their ideas accordingly (Is that right Recumbentman?)

But...

1/ what is oftened missed out in this point of view on Ayer's verification principle is the anti-thesis dialectic argument, for example on the Belief-in-God proposition = P it is equally nonsense as a statement with P = True or False. It's a statement from which you cannot proceed. Having said that Ayer nevertheless was an avowed Atheist (?)

2/ It is accepted in most usage today that trying to prove Logical Positivism via the Verification principle itself is a lost cause, since

a) Emprically you cannot prove it
b) Analytically you are unlikely to prove it becuase of Godels Incompleteness theory

Nevertheless credit where credit is due - its useful. But only for those problems it can address. And in certain areas, such as issues relating to huma truths of 'truth, beauty and goodness' for example its fairly useless.

MISOLOGY defined : n. Hatred of argument, reason, or enlightenment. [from Greek misologia, miso (hatred, hating) + logos (the word, or that by which the inward thought is expressed)]

ANATHEMA defined : n. An object of loathing: somebody or something that is greatly disliked or detested and is therefore shunned. [Early 16th century. Via ecclesiastical Latin < Greek, "something devoted to evil" < anatithenai "set up"]

Seem's to me that Misology should be an Anathema to all philosophers. Yet we have grandee's of philosophy saying forthrightly ...

'...I want atheism to be true and I am uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God, and naturally hope that I'm right about my belief. It's that I HOPE there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that'. (The American philosopher Thomas Nagel)

'(of his Near-Death-Experience) ... slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death ... will be the end of me, though I continue to HOPE that it will be.' (Prior to his death in 1989 A J Ayer the English philosopher, a lifelong and famous religious skeptic, had a vivid near-death experience after choking on a piece of smoked salmon that stopped his heart for at least four minutes. He attending doctor said 'Ayer told me he saw the Supreme Being.')

Such expressions of 'HOPE' got me thinking. I daresay for them it seem to be generated from a certain kind of hate of what some think of the word - 'logos'.

Albeit being somewhat provocative I would like to ask a question...

What motivated Ayer and Nagel to their expressed hope, against something that many see as offering ultimate hope and meaning?

I think that there may be a bit of arrogance there. Along the lines of "I would rather an infinity of nothingness than to be proven wrong."

It was Plato that said:

"...times will change and even reverse many of your present opinions. Refrain, therefore, awhile from setting yourself up as a judge of the highest matters."

http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2881

This has got me thinking about the concept of "meaning". I think it is the case that we understand language by agreement of terms and constructs, as well as context. The idea of 'God' is flawed as there is no-one knockdown definition of Him/it. So remains the question 'How can we form a propositional statement about something we don't understand'?

Nick_em,

Here is my perspective...

Your knowledge/understanding of God or other aspects of reality is not just limited to your rational faculty of 'mind'. For Judeao-Christians they are asked(commanded) to "Love God with all their mind, body, heart and soul."

When you are in love you truly 'know' the other person, in a way a rational only mind cannot. So to know or understand God you need to be prepared to commit to and Love God.

The trouble here of course is how to make a committment BEFORE the knowing?

Well, use you rational mind to the very best of your facility, then open yourself to your other human faculties (you are not a robot-creation of man's mind only afterall). Your 'heart' gives you emotional intelligence, the 'body' gives you genetic/memetic intelligence and the 'soul' connects you to the nouminous/collective unconscious and there is intelligence there as well - but you have to trust the inner voice has something to say.

If you approach God with only part of your being you will only get part of the meaning.

There are risks involved, pure internal refleection, or gnosis, is often error-prone. So it's good to get guidance and check-ups as you proceed from people you trust as having made a journey before you, though it is in the end a personal journey. As a general guideline (from a Classic Theist perspective): If the inner guidance you get is based on 'Selfless Love', it's probably OK. And as they say around here .

And one other thing - you are putting 'God in the Dock' as CS Lewis would say. We only see through a glass darkly now, perhaps things are as they are for a purpose, eg., we need to ultimately make a leap of faith and committment with things as they are. Reason will take us a certain part of the way. Think of life as a test or a trial - that's the meta-narrative of many theists.

Hope that makes sense to you.

Yes, it's true that we are not merely rational beings (as Hume found contrary to Kant).

You tell a good story, but how plausible is it that you find the 'actual' God? You could just be creating Someone out of thin air. Inevitably, part of religion will be the "mystery" of God. The question remains "Who is God"? And is it ethical to believe in something that we don't or can't understand?

Although I respect beliefs of some of the accompanying ideals of religion, the idea of any supernatural being seems in the tradition of Occam's razor, an unnecessary belief.

Also, you said that "you must love God with each part of you". This sounds preachy - and how are you meant to use your body to love God? It seems to not follow that "love of God" entails "understanding of God".

"you are putting 'God in the Dock' as CS Lewis would say". What is the meaning of this phrase?

"We only see through a glass darkly now"- What does that metaphor mean?
and when you say "perhaps things are as they are for a purpose" - are you invoking the cosmological argument question of 'why is there something rather than nothing'?

and the last part 'we need to ultimately make a leap of faith and committment with things as they are' doesn't even make sense to me. Could you please explain it.

I'm sorry that I don't seem to understand anything properly that people are saying. To do this for simpletons such as me, please explain what the metaphors and phrases mean. I'm not really up with C.S. Lewis' philosophy, either.

Nick-em,
I'm still unpacking from having moved house and have only just got my onternet connection back up. In any case to many of your queries you can find entries in my personal space journal that may address them.

1/ Reasoning with the whole of your being to find meaning: For now I'll just add that human reasoning is more than just rational (mind) mode. You have emotional intelligence in your unconscious, neurologists have found that when that part of the brain (not the poetic heart!) is damaged it is very difficult for people to choose between alternatives. You can excercise and learn EI just as with logic with practice and maturity.

As for Body intelligence, that refers to genetic and memetic intelligence. Its a new field but clearly our endocrine system has evolved over the years to help us with conditioned reflex as well as neurochemistry, the interaction is complex and on occasions swamps our rational ability (eg., adrenalin response is well known). Memetic intelligence (articulated by Dawkins and Dennett in a strong way) has been around for quite a while as CG Jung collective unconscious - we have developed/evolved archetype response in our traditions. These can also help you with 'common sense'. But only if you engage them in a reasoned way (you have to challenge them with your conscience).

That inner voice can also have a spiritual dimension as well - reinforced with 'faith', may 'rational-only' find such approaches challenging, so avoid it and deny it.

2/ Loving/Knowing God: When I say "Love God" - I mean in the original Judaic understanding which means "know" as well as the selfless love of "agape". You committ and then you receive. Its hard to make those type of love committments generally. It take a certain kind of leap. Ordinary folks do it all the time with the love that comes from 'eros' or 'filia' to use the old Greek terms. And God can be part of all these understandings of Love as well. If you understand Love you will Know in a way the rational mind alone finds difficult.

The Greek philosphers had an understanding of God as Logos - the Word that when spoke brought into being the world. This thought, is a wonderful metaphor for Jesus Christ - see the 1st chapter of John.

The syncretic merger of Judaic and Hellenistic philosophy (with the help of folks like Agustine and Aquinas brought about much of Christian Theology)

3/ As far as "finding God": Well, it hard for everyone, including me, from time to time. Its as if there are silences - poetically called 'dark nights of the soul', I am in one right now as it so happens. But there is a deep part of me that still believes irrespective of circumstances. Maybe some folks dont have that, but some clearly do.

When I say "looking through a glass darkly", I am quoting from one of the letters of St Paul (1 Corinthians 13 I think - I'll check later). It means that we dont see all things perfectly well now - becuase our minds are clouded and distorted like a mirror 1900 years ago often where. Why clouded? Well we can go into Theology here at length - let's just say we often have in mind our own agendas and things look different than they really are often that way.

4/ A "leap of faith": is a common expression these days, but the philosophy of Soren Kierkeegaard took it to more sublime expression. He had 3 spheres of existence (he was the father of existensialism) and for him, a fideist had to make a unsupported leap to move from one sphere to another.

I have 3 CS Lewis pieces in peer review at this time have a look there.

Now back to unpacking boxes!

Sorry for all the typo's, I was rushing - 'onternet' may be better rendering than 'internet' anyway when online!

Aside on looking glasses. While at Uni one of our lecturers said that autobiographies were only written after the silvered mirror was invented. I never checked it out and wondered if anyone had any further info on this?