textman
+
> ILovePhilosophy.com
> Discussion Forums > Philosophy
> Post subject: Re: Agnostics are pussies
.
> On 15Dec06 Twiffy wrote: [snip] What is up with agnostics? When you come down
> to it, there is almost nothing more important in life than the question of "is there a
> god" [snip] So who in their right mind would say "hmm, I don't know if god exists
> or not. I'll just go on about my life until I figure it out later." HELL no! You say
> "holy crap, this is a really important question, and I need to sit down and think
> about it NOW!"
.
tx say: haha, thx twiffy, you really made my day with that post. One good laugh a day
keeps the blues at bay, I always say. Anyway, and seriously now, I'm almost certain
that the God-question is nowhere near as important as you obviously think it is.
Indeed, there are many questions that are far more important, far more relevant
to life on Earth in the 21st century, and far more urgent than that. 4X: Questions of
freedom and liberty. Questions about the rise of fascism and religious intolerance.
Questions about the morality and righteousness of the war on drugs. All these
questions, and many more, require our attention far more than the pointless and
abstract debate over the existence of God.
.
> Agnosticism seems like a very reasonable "transition" position. But it doesn't seem
> like anyone should stay in that position for long. In fact, the most likely way that
> someone would remain agnostic for a long period of time (e.g. more than a year)
> would be if that person really didn't believe in god, but was too scared of death /
> too scared of social rejection / too much of a pussy to admit it.
.
Actually, agnosticism is a *very* reasonable position, period. In fact, it is the *only*
reasonable position. The one thing that atheists and theists have in common is that
they are both equally unreasonable. Anyone who claims certainty regarding this
question has long since left the promised land of reason and sensibility and entered
the fickle and shifting shores of faith.
.
> I was an agnostic for a few months. But during those months I was actively
> thinking about the whole "god" issue. The issue is actually pretty cut-and-dry
> if you sit down and think about it objectively. Thus, I transitioned quickly and
> easily into full-blown atheism.
.
You are fooling yourself. There is no more evidence to support atheism than there is
for theism. Actually, over the course of my life and studies I have found myself in all
three positions. Moreover, I have found the transition from one position to another to
be rather simple and painless. This is not because of any lack of care or enthusiasm,
but rather because the "god issue", as you put it, is really not something worth
getting all that excited about.
.
> Anyone who has been agnostic for any extended period of time should
> consider growing a pair and doing the same.
.
"growing a pair" has nothing to do with it, twiffy. Philosophical maturity means
coming to have a deeper and richer understanding of Reason (and Philosophy) and
the role it should play in our lives, both individually and collectively. It also means
coming to have a stronger respect for logic and rational thinking in *all* aspects of
our lives. Your belief in the importance of the god-question is really nothing more
than an unjustified value-judgment based on your need to be self-decisive. Wisdom
demands that you re-think the entire structure of your ideas and beliefs so as to
weed out all the shortcomings, faults, and weaknesses.
.
Begin at the beginning: . . . i am ... therefore i think.
x
+
> ILovePhilosophy.com Discussion Forums > Philosophy
> Post subject: Re: Define Quality
.
I too have read 'Zen and the Art of MM' and found it to be quite interesting.
In fact, I still have my copy after all these years. It's been quite a while
since I last read it, but I also was surprised with the equating of Quality
with Tao. It seemed an elegant solution at the time, but now I'm not so
sure. For the sake of philosophy, if nothing else, we ought to be able to
come up with a more pragmatic and sensible definition than that!
.
> On 18Dec06 Old_Gobbo wrote: [snip] ... Isn't quality simply the output
> of the realization that you are considering the nature of a concept?
.
Say what? Can you translate that into plain English for me?
.
Don't know much about ... Qual-it-y
.
But I do know that there's nothing "simply" about it. In fact, we can't even
reduce it to the plane of individual subjectivity. Whatever Quality is, it's
much bigger than any two or three philosophers! :D
x
+
> ILovePhilosophy.com Discussion Forums > Philosophy
> Post subject: Re: Define Quality
.
> On 22Dec06 kingdaddy wrote: Quality = Truth
.
tx say: Sorry, kingdaddy, but "Quality = Truth" is NOT an acceptable
definition. It is not acceptable because it is not an adequate definition.
In fact it is not a definition at all, it is simply an affirmation of identity.
And even at that, it is *still* incorrect because Truth does not equal
Quality. I would even go so far as to say that Quality cannot be reduced
to anything else. It is a unique and apparently vital aspect or attribute
of the cosmos and/or the mind. Just because "scientific" philosophers
can't define it doesn't mean that it's *really* something else ...
x
+
> ILovePhilosophy.com Discussion Forums > Philosophy
> Post subject: Re: Define Quality
.
> On 22Dec06 kingdaddy replied: Is there Quality without Truth?
.
tx say: Truth may indeed be associated with Quality, but that does not
really tell us much about the nature or essence of Quality. Although
Truth is, in many ways, a value-judgment made by Mind, it is largely a
purely intellectual thing. Of course, Quality is *also* a value-judgment,
but it is (I believe) more closely connected with perception and
personality, than to intellect as such. To put it another way, Quality is
a reflection or emanation of the whole mind of any individual person,
whereas Truth is chiefly the preserve of intellect (and so has little to do
with personality). Now I'm not sure if you can appreciate the distinction
I am trying to make here, but I am certain that it is the key to unlocking
the mystery surrounding Quality.
.
> Is there Quality in something False?
.
Yes, I do think that is possible. For example, I was watching a show
the other day about this old guy from Canada who became slightly
unhinged after discovering that his wife was cheating on him. Anyway,
he went to the US and embarked upon a career of conning money out
of sweet old ladies. He did it by becoming their 'significant other'. He
romanced them until he could get at their wealth, helped himself to
whatever was available, and then left them to search out a new victim.
Now you could say that the man was a terrible fraud and swindler, and
you'd be right; but you'd also be missing the point. This man IS charming
and friendly and fun to talk to and be with. None of that is fake. It's all
genuine aspects of the man's personality. It's only his motives that are
immoral and anti-social. Here again it's a subtle distinction that I am
trying to make here; but a real one nonetheless.
x
+
]--> ILovePhilosophy.com Discussion Forums > Philosophy
]--> Post subject --> Re: Define Quality / Part Fourr
.
"In actual fact, we start by feeling certainty about all sorts of things,
and we surrender this feeling only where some definite argument has
convinced us that it is liable to lead to error. When we find any class of
primitive certainties which never leads to error, we retain our convictions
in regard to this class. That is to say, wherever we feel initial certainty,
we require an argument to make us doubt, not an argument to make us
believe. We may therefore take, as the basis of our beliefs, any class of
primitive certainties which cannot be shown to lead us into error. This
is really what Descartes does, though he is not clear about himself.
Moreover, when we have found an error in something of which we were
previously certain, we do not as a rule abandon entirely the belief which
mislead us, but we seek, if we can, to modify it so that it shall no longer
be demonstrably false." -- Bertrand Russell, from Chapter 16: Self-
Observation, Part Three: Man From Within, in 'An Outline of Philosophy'
.
>>> On 22Dec06 kingdaddy replied: Is there Quality without Truth?
.
>> tx say: Truth may indeed be associated with Quality, but that does
>> not really tell us much about the nature or essence of Quality.
.
> On 28Dec06 kingdaddy wrote: Neither does the word Quality, it’s a
> general term with many shades, but all must fit the criteria to be
> considered Quality. I think you're making too much out of such a simple
> concept; quality is not a difficult word once you find the foundation,
> and that foundation is Truth.
.
tx say: Russell also makes much out of the fact that words are GENERAL in
essence and nature and function. This means that words don't really provide
the specifics and particulars of any given event or occasion. They give SOME
information, but hardly more than a small fraction of what *could* be given.
This is doubtless *why* "defining quality" is such a bizarre and thankless
occupation; for Quality lurks in the very concrete and particular (real-world)
details. This, coupled to the knowledge that 'quality' is actually a very subtle
and complex *concept*, shows us why the motorcycle mechanic had such a
rough ride with IT right on the back seat there with him. :)
.
Russell also makes much out of the idea that no two people can see the
same event in quite the same way. If that is so, then it is a terrible blow to
Dialogue (and thus to Quality too); but, fortunately, Russell way over-stresses
the significance of this physical and objective "flaw" in human perception. This
is because many of the things we see are social entities (eg. a football game),
which is only to say that we routinely see objects which are MORE complex
than any simple material object (such as my pen here).
.
In terms of physics and logic, no two people can have seen *exactly* the
same sets of sense-data that a football game produces, but no one would
even dare think to say that ALL of the fans *didn't* see the SAME game.
This is because football (like a great deal of human reality) is a *shared*
reality. Therefore Quality, if it is anything at all, is also a part of that portion
of Reality that is shared among human beings. Now scientists work in a self-
imposed vacuum because the numbers prefer it that way; but numbers are
incapable of capturing something so elusive (and almost spiritual) as Quality.
This is why scientific-philosophers cannot crack the nut that is the foggy and
ill-defined concept known as Quality.
.
Take that Russell quote at the top, for example. Each and every word it
is composed of is a "general term with many shades", as indeed all words
are. And as isolated individual words they are necessarily limited, imprecise,
misleading, and so on. However, when you put them together in just *this*
particular way they form a coherent and complex whole that is anything but
unclear. Moreover, this particular string of words is fairly oozing with both
Truth AND Quality. The truth of it ought to be apparent to any worthy
philosopher, but the quality of the quote may not be so apparent.
.
So there are basically two forms of philosophical literature: the monologue
narrative (which is just a string of thoughts, one following after another),
and the dialogue. Now obviously dialogue is the more lively and dynamic of
the two forms, but the meditative narrative has nevertheless been the most
popular form for many centuries (maybe even since Aristotle). However,
thanks to the Net and its myriad forums, dialogue is making a comeback,
even in Philosophy. This is good news for me because I am essentially a
Socratic-type philosopher who (like master Socrates) believes that two heads
are better than one. Two heads = two brains = two minds. Two (or more)
philosophical minds working together on the same problem, on the same
sets of questions and answers, is more likely to focus on the essence and
excellence of any given question ... such as 'What is Quality?' Therefore I
believe that dialogue is the best way to go about answering such a question.
After all, asking questions and trying to answer those questions logically
AND rationally is what Philosophy is all about! :D
.
Anyway, if I'm hearing you correctly, kingdaddy, your claim is that the quality
of this Russell quote resolves into, and stems from, its high level of truth
content. But in fact, this is not the case. Believe me when I say that
literature is a lot more complex than your simple notion allows for ... that is
to say, *A LOT*! This is especially obvious in this case of our Russell quote
above, which is a minor masterpiece of philosophical thinking at its finest, a
little mini-essay that is complete and perfect in itself. But the truth it holds
is only one aspect, one portion if you will, of its overall quality. This analysis
also effectively demonstrates that your notion that Quality = Truth is
inadequate and untrue, and therefore false. If this proof cannot convince you
to give up that erroneous notion, then I fear nothing can.
.
>>> kd: Is there Quality in something False?
.
>> tx: Yes, I do think that is possible. For example, I was watching a show
>> the other day about this old guy from Canada who became slightly
>> unhinged after discovering that his wife was cheating on him. Anyway,
>> he went to the US and embarked upon a career of conning money out
>> of sweet old ladies. He did it by becoming their 'significant other'. He
>> romanced them until he could get at their wealth, helped himself to
>> whatever was available, and then left them to search out a new victim.
>> Now you could say that the man was a terrible fraud and swindler, and
>> you'd be right; but you'd also be missing the point. This man IS charming
>> and friendly and fun to talk to and be with. None of that is fake. It's all
>> genuine aspects of the man's personality. It's only his motives that are
>> immoral and anti-social. Here again it's a subtle distinction that I am
>> trying to make here; but a real one nonetheless.
.
> kd: I have no idea why you think this example is any proof of quality in
> something false. You’ve explained the story well enough but you forgot
> to add why and where the so called quality is. Do you actually believe if
> someone is charming on the outside that this is some form of Quality? Can
> there be Quality in deception? If so, maybe you need to consider that good
> intent is what makes Truth when considering a human choice. Being nice
> and cordial to someone so you can gain their confidence and swindle them
> out of money is in no way by anyone’s definition that I know of considered
> Quality, it’s simply deceiving for personal gain. Bad (false) example IMO.
.
kingdaddy asked if Quality could ever be associated with Falsity, and I
answered by providing a very concrete and particular real-world example of just
that. But now kingdaddy rejects this as a false example. He does this BECAUSE
his notion that Quality = Truth in and of itself disallows even the possibility of
Quality being tied to Falsity. Thus when you begin with the "knowledge" that
Quality = Truth, then such an example as the one given above must necessarily
be regarded as a logical non-sequetor. It simply does not compute. And when
faced with something that does not compute, something that does not add up,
our natural reaction is to just dismiss it outright, and then zealously ignore it for
as long as possible. And this is what kingdaddy does, because our example not
only shows that Quality CAN be linked with Falsity, but also demonstrates that
Quality is NOT causally or essentially connected with Truth.
.
Thus Quality appears to be primarily a matter of perception. There are
different degrees or levels of perception. It's all about awareness, knowledge,
and just plain-old paying attention. Take 'Yahoo Answers', for example. On that
web-site, anyone can go and ask any question, and then just wait for other
people to offer their answers. Sometimes the asker asks a question and gets
lots of answers. Sometimes only a few. Later on, the asker can choose which of
the answers is best. But this project can be tricky if there are a lot of answers
to choose from. How do you choose which answer is the best? The word 'best'
itself seems to imply a close connection to Quality: best - good --> better -->
best [here again there are various *levels* of quality]; of the highest quality or
excellence; most advantageous, suitable, or desirable; most fully; etc.
.
Which only throws the burden back upon: quality - typical or essential feature
or characteristic or nature (eg. its distinguishing quality); superior or high grade
of excellence. Since both words refer to another similar word, let us look at that:
excellence - superiority or worth; an excellent quality or feature. Well, obviously
the dictionary is only giving us the run around, and not really defining for us
what exactly 'quality' is. But it does tell us some things: quality is pervasive,
quality is 'out there', and quality can be seen. Sometimes it can be easily seen
by everyone (eg. a Porsche 944), and sometimes it can be very hard to see.
.
Thus our Yahoo asker may easily overlook the objectively "best" answer in
favor of another that, for example, tells a joke and makes the asker laugh. It
all depends on what the asker is looking for. Some askers look for the most
useful answer, and call that the best. Some askers look for the most detailed or
complete answer, and call that the best. And some askers are lazy, and simply
choose whatever answer they find most entertaining or comical, or most in
agreement with their own manner of thinking. The point here is that very *very*
few askers set out to deliberately and consciously seek out the answer with the
most quality (ie. the *best* answer). Quality is what the perceiver sees! The
Quality seen is a direct function of the Quality sought. Therefore, Quality-Vision
is a form of intellectual perception: the more you know, the more you see.
Quality, like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. AND it is also part of the
Real-World "out-there". Quality is BOTH an objective and subjective reality!
And like Language, Quality-Vision is a learned behavior that can be exercised
and developed.
.
But in our pragmatic, money-oriented society, most people don't even take
Quality seriously because it's not something that can be easily quantified or
measured. If they think of it at all, it's more of an afterthought than anything
else. Actually, Quality is NOT a concept; or rather, not merely a concept. I only
call it that because we have no choice but to treat it *as if* it were a concept,
because Quality, like thoughts and concepts, is chiefly a mental phenomena (ie.
a product of active and living minds). But Quality, like Philosophy, can be
defined in various ways, depending on what you want to do with it. A good
general definition of use to Philosophy might want to stress the active-process
aspect of Quality. So, for example, we could say that Quality IS Perception; or
rather, a very important form of perception. It is a "way of seeing" . . .
x