It is disturbing, I think, that last class it took an hour, despite that I asked for this at the beginning, to begin to define the terms, an activity we did not complete (Yes I looked at the clock). So, in an effort to perhaps save time next class, I am going to posit here definitions of the two realms of thought. I mean these to be neither accurate nor final, merely the impressions I got listening to Johnson and reading the paper he assigned.
Naturalism: The worldview that relies only on natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual, to explain the mechanisms of reality. (Though linked strongly, not synonymous with empiricism)
Supernaturalism: The worldview that uses non verifiable explanations in augmentation of, though not necessarily in lieu of, natural elements and forces. Though it is much more common, supernaturalism requires no more faith than does naturalism. (It could be as simple as believing a person relaying a supernatural explanation to you)
They do not seem as contradictory as most people were making them out to be. Deism strikes a hard example given that it is a belief that there are natural laws and no supernatural forces are currently at work. Deism is as much a proponent of empiricism as atheism tends to be.
Are my definitions sufficient or are they missing something important?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
A Modest Inquiry
Re: Knowledge vs Wisdom and Preference vs Objectivity
I find it a rather sensational absolute claim that wisdom is a divine experience, for I can discern no moment of ascendancy from a secular experience to a possibly divine counterpart. I also think it improbable, presupposing the previous claim to be true, that every word we utter is an attempt to tap into that wisdom. "Hey Brendon, can you hand me that cup?" Is the attempt to tap into wisdom a subconscious act, one with which I am unaware? For my only intent with that statement was to have you give me the cup.
"Every word that comes out of our mouth is an attempt to tap into this wisdom...The mind is only interested in knowledge..." Words are necessarily predicated upon the existence of a mind. Words are not sentient. They have no intention beyond that which is bestowed by the active mind from whence they originated. If the mind is not interested in wisdom, neither can the words. Becky brought up a good point. To which ego are you referring and how and when does it disappear?
"Wisdom is instant...[wisdom] grows in your heart." Though, these statement seem contradictory, it is possible that I misinterpreted the language. How does wisdom generate innocence? On what objective basis is innocence determined and where is the causal link between the two qualities?
Before we judge whether or not wisdom taps into a metaphysical reality behind all existence, should we not demonstrate the existence of such a metaphysical reality? Is this not a necessary preliminary step?
"[Wisdom] is without qualities." "Wisdom is instant...wisdom is a divine experience...wisdom is intrinsically true." Instantaneous, divine, true...all qualities. (You have used the word feminine, in both class and on your blog in constantly varying contexts with which I can find no corroborating definition. Could you clarify?)
Words are indicators of what?
Words are dangerous because people believe what they say and they miss the spirit. I understand that words are often inadequate to fully address the intentions of the speaker. While language is an imperfect tool, it is the most effective one we have. It is necessary to understand what the words say. Absent this step, it would be impossible to ascertain the spirit.
Within philosophical discourse, every claim requires due articulation, explanation, and justification. A claim absent these co-requisites denies both motivation and adequate means to further explore and interpret the ideas of the author. These virtues of discourse are not luxuries to which we aspire; they are the necessities of effective communication.
I find it a rather sensational absolute claim that wisdom is a divine experience, for I can discern no moment of ascendancy from a secular experience to a possibly divine counterpart. I also think it improbable, presupposing the previous claim to be true, that every word we utter is an attempt to tap into that wisdom. "Hey Brendon, can you hand me that cup?" Is the attempt to tap into wisdom a subconscious act, one with which I am unaware? For my only intent with that statement was to have you give me the cup.
"Every word that comes out of our mouth is an attempt to tap into this wisdom...The mind is only interested in knowledge..." Words are necessarily predicated upon the existence of a mind. Words are not sentient. They have no intention beyond that which is bestowed by the active mind from whence they originated. If the mind is not interested in wisdom, neither can the words. Becky brought up a good point. To which ego are you referring and how and when does it disappear?
"Wisdom is instant...[wisdom] grows in your heart." Though, these statement seem contradictory, it is possible that I misinterpreted the language. How does wisdom generate innocence? On what objective basis is innocence determined and where is the causal link between the two qualities?
Before we judge whether or not wisdom taps into a metaphysical reality behind all existence, should we not demonstrate the existence of such a metaphysical reality? Is this not a necessary preliminary step?
"[Wisdom] is without qualities." "Wisdom is instant...wisdom is a divine experience...wisdom is intrinsically true." Instantaneous, divine, true...all qualities. (You have used the word feminine, in both class and on your blog in constantly varying contexts with which I can find no corroborating definition. Could you clarify?)
Words are indicators of what?
Words are dangerous because people believe what they say and they miss the spirit. I understand that words are often inadequate to fully address the intentions of the speaker. While language is an imperfect tool, it is the most effective one we have. It is necessary to understand what the words say. Absent this step, it would be impossible to ascertain the spirit.
Within philosophical discourse, every claim requires due articulation, explanation, and justification. A claim absent these co-requisites denies both motivation and adequate means to further explore and interpret the ideas of the author. These virtues of discourse are not luxuries to which we aspire; they are the necessities of effective communication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)