What or who created the universe?

[drogulus]

Drogulus,

A different angle for a moment: Don't you think that the "new atheists" like Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens have an important blindspot and that is that their version of atheism is purely negative.... you just strip belief away and go on from there.   

Isn't that inadequate ? I think society needs a substitute that will fill some of the valuable functions that religions have served.  Shouldn't we put the humanism back in the secular ?

    I disagree with the idea that you have to replace one concept with another. Sometimes the problem is having more concepts than you can justify.

    The valuable functions that religion performs will always be performed. Atheists/agnostics operate under the same value systems without the religious intermediary. The same values built into believers are built into everyone else, as Dawkins explained in The God Delusion. The nature of moral intuitions doesn't change very much. When you substitute "what values should be chosen?" for "what values were chosen for you?" you find they are the same. If religions really had a secret communication path to the absolute the values would be different. But if the god ideas believers hold are as vaporous as they appear then there shouldn't be a difference, and there isn't. That is, the overlap is far greater than what separates them. You can find moral wedge issues to pry the groups apart just as you can between religions. The secret pipeline to truth has nothing in it that isn't found elsewhere except belief in the pipe.

[Renfield]

I haven't read that part of Kant, no! He's the most difficult philosopher that I have ever tried to read - so hideously dense that it's a wonder that anyone persevered enough to realise quite how important he was!

Everyone keeps saying that...

I do acknowledge that Kant writes densely: essentially every word carries full "weight of meaning", and it can read like formal logic in English (or German, as the case may be). However, I never found him impenetrable - far from it, I greatly enjoy reading his work.

Then again, I read sentences in logic directly without translating them, so perhaps it's that knack that makes it easier. But that still doesn't cut it, or every serious logician (and likely most serious mathematicians) would find Kant fun like I do, and they don't seem to.

[Homo Aestheticus]

I do acknowledge that Kant writes densely: essentially every word carries full "weight of meaning", and it can read like formal logic in English.

Here is one of my favorite criticisms of Kant:

Immanuel Kant the greatest philosopher? The greatest bore, yes. The most exhaustive in his quest to clarify the obvious, maybe. For me, he represents everything ridiculous about Academe:  bloated  intellectuals who never use two words when two thousand will suffice.

I'd say the greatest philosopher would be Wittgenstein -- who basically explained why any rigorous analytical approach to metaphysical philosophy, such as Kant's, is 'wrongheaded' from the start. After the Enlightenment, and the relative success of scientific principles of analytical study, philosophers imagined that they could apply these same principles to any field of study, and come up with similar proofs and models for metaphysics as the scientists had done for physics. Frege, Bertrand Russell, AJ Ayer and, ultimately, Wittgenstein, tried to break down language into mathematical structures so that philosophy could be dealt with in a scientific way, but they found that language and human understanding had too nebulous a connection. In other words, we could understand concepts without any need for 100% precision -- the kind Kant was aiming for -- instead, we use 'fuzzy logic'. Ironically, now this concept of 'fuzzy logic' is being applied by scientists.

*****

[Renfield]

Here is one of my favorite criticisms of Kant:

Immanuel Kant the greatest philosopher? The greatest bore, yes. The most exhaustive in his quest to clarify the obvious, maybe. For me, he represents everything ridiculous about Academe:  bloated  intellectuals who never use two words when two thousand will suffice.

I'd say the greatest philosopher would be Wittgenstein -- who basically explained why any rigorous analytical approach to metaphysical philosophy, such as Kant's, is 'wrongheaded' from the start. After the Enlightenment, and the relative success of scientific principles of analytical study, philosophers imagined that they could apply these same principles to any field of study, and come up with similar proofs and models for metaphysics as the scientists had done for physics. Frege, Bertrand Russell, AJ Ayer and, ultimately, Wittgenstein, tried to break down language into mathematical structures so that philosophy could be dealt with in a scientific way, but they found that language and human understanding had too nebulous a connection. In other words, we could understand concepts without any need for 100% precision -- the kind Kant was aiming for -- instead, we use 'fuzzy logic'. Ironically, now this concept of 'fuzzy logic' is being applied by scientists.

*****

With all due respect, you are not correct. Wittgenstein was a tremendous philosopher, is the person who made me decide to focus my professional activity around the subject, and was brilliant. As were Frege, Russel, Ayer (in ethics), and Kant.

Philosophy, and especially modern philosophy, cannot be explained so simply; nor Kant disregarded so blatantly. Wittgenstein himself was tremendously influenced by Kant, as were his predecessors in the logicist movement (along with Plato, for Gottleb Frege in particular). And the logicists failed in their objective of codifying reality through logic not because language and human understanding have "too nebulous a connection", but because Kurt Gödel prove that logicism as they pursued it was structurally impossible.

Finally, fuzzy logic (a rather irksome term, to which most logicians prefer "many-valued logic") is an extension of classical logic, not the extension of classical logic. In fact, it's not even the only many-valued logic in existence.


I will acknowledge as a point that Kant's 100% "covering" of his concepts could be misguided. But if it is misguided, the reasons will be deeper than "bloatedness", or unclarity of exposition. Metaphysics and analytical philosophy are not necessarily one and the same.


Also, Frege and Russell considered their work an extension of Plato's approach to formalising reality starting with the tools Aristotle had observed, which they could expand on with modern mathematical notions - some of which (quantifiers) Frege invented - even before having anything to do with the Enlightenment, for which they were a couple of centuries too late. And saying that they "tried to break down language into mathematical structures so that philosophy could be dealt with in a scientific way" is also wildly inaccurate. Philosophy is not science.



All that having been said, philosophy is certainly about arguments, and you are free to argue for or against Kant's value as a philosopher. But radical arguments require extensive knowledge of the field one argues about. In fact, that is why universities exist, and have existed since Plato's own "Academia": to help with acquiring this knowledge, whether about classical logic or "what or who created the universe".

It's not impossible to acquire the knowledge outside of academia - far from it, as Wittgenstein himself showed.

But the issue remains, the knowledge must be acquired, the experience must be accrued. And one cannot argue about philosophy or God, without this foundation any more than one can play a trombone without having the proper lungs. Whilst if one does have the lungs, one usually goes to play in an orchestra, rather than practice in the park. The same, I would think, applies for philosophy and this forum.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Renfield,

That was a nice summary.      

But how does that make Kant's argument against suicide correct ?

[Renfield]

Renfield,

That was a nice summary.      

But how does that make Kant's argument against suicide correct ?

Now that is a different question.

I never purported to support his specific argument, or even his entire theory (finding it enjoyable is not necessarily equivalent to finding it valid): I only mentioned it after Guido said he'd never encountered an argument for the immorality of suicide before.


That is not to say I do not have an opinion on Kant's argument, but this I would prefer not to put forward for the moment, with your permission. If you want a "yes or no" type of answer, no, I don't agree with suicide being something we shouldn't do because it's immoral.

(Though note my wording.)


Edit: And thank you.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Hi Renfield... (you're welcome)

All that having been said, philosophy is certainly about arguments, and you are free to argue for or against Kant's value as a philosopher. But radical arguments require extensive knowledge of the field one argues about. In fact, that is why universities exist, and have existed since Plato's own "Academia": to help with acquiring this knowledge, whether about classical logic or "what or who created the universe".

It's not impossible to acquire the knowledge outside of academia - far from it, as Wittgenstein himself showed.

But the issue remains, the knowledge must be acquired, the experience must be accrued. And one cannot argue about philosophy or God, without this foundation any more than one can play a trombone without having the proper lungs. Whilst if one does have the lungs, one usually goes to play in an orchestra, rather than practice in the park. The same, I would think, applies for philosophy and this forum.

Some questions on this:

As a student of philosophy how often did you personally find the complexity and obscurity of the writing get in the way of communicating a point ? Are philosophers almost always bad writers ? Why do they often take a concept that could be explained with one sentence and then extend it into a page ?

Perhaps I'm a simpleton but to me good writing is direct, concise, and to the point. Of course I am NOT including the sciences and technology here; obviously they require their own specialized terminology.

Of course at times it is important for a philosopher to answer a past essay in detail or develop an argument in a technical way so that future readers will not question the logic of the argument needlessly and to invent your own terminology so that others do not confuse your arguments within the philosophical discourse... BUT, I still think that most philosophers go too far.

Have we been brainwashed to think that a great work must be difficult to read ?

That is not to say I do not have an opinion on Kant's argument, but this I would prefer not to put forward for the moment, with your permission.

If you want a "yes or no" type of answer, no, I don't agree with suicide being something we shouldn't do because it's immoral.

Here are the two main arguments arguments against suicide that I've read:

1. Suicide is immoral and unethical because many of the reasons for committing suicide – such as depression, emotional pain, or economic hardship – are transitory and can be ameliorated by therapy and through making changes to some aspects of one's life.

2. Suicide is immoral and unethical because we as individuals are not islands; we have responsibiliies/duties to our families or society. (the functionalist view)

*********

Do you accept these arguments.  And if not, why not.

[Bulldog]

Here are the two main arguments arguments against suicide that I've read:

1. Suicide is immoral and unethical because many of the reasons for committing suicide – such as depression, emotional pain, or economic hardship – are transitory and can be ameliorated by therapy and through making changes to some aspects of one's life.

2. Suicide is immoral and unethical because we as individuals are not islands; we have responsibiliies/duties to our families or society. (the functionalist view)

*********

Do you accept these arguments.  And if not, why not.

I don't consider it immoral or unethical.  However, I'd like to see folks interested in it to stop babbling about it and just move on and do it.

[Renfield]

(1) As a student of philosophy how often did you personally find the complexity and obscurity of the writing get in the way of communicating a point ? (2) Are philosophers almost always bad writers ? (3) Why do they often take a concept that could be explained with one sentence and then extend it into a page ?

Perhaps I'm a simpleton but to me good writing is direct, concise, and to the point. (4) Of course I am NOT including the sciences and technology here; obviously they require their own specialized terminology.

(5) Of course at times it is important for a philosopher to answer a past essay in detail or develop an argument in a technical way so that future readers will not question the logic of the argument needlessly and to invent your own terminology so that others do not confuse your arguments within the philosophical discourse... (6) BUT, I still think that most philosophers go too far.

(7) Have we been brainwashed to think that a great work must be difficult to read ?

[My numbering.]

(1): Not often.

However, a crucial aspect of the training one receives in being a philosophy student (especially one with my interest in logic) is in examining, outlining, analysing and critically assessing arguments. And since this is done impartially (or done wrong), I do not often go into the process of wondering how what I'm reading could have been written, either: I work with what I have.

(Of course, part of one's capacity to do analytic philosophy is being able to transcribe arguments in a clearer form. That, however, is done post hoc, and is not comparable with putting the arguments on paper in the first place.)


(2): The above having been said, many philosophers, most often in ethics and particularly from the French and, perhaps surprisingly, the post-Enlightenment British tradition, are very wordy. A number of them are self-indulgent, and some of them rather "holier-than-thou".

However, the majority of great philosophers, even if some of them are great "in spite of their way of writing, rather than because of it" (a very apt comment I once read), had clear ideas. Nietzsche and Heidegger, to name a couple of "problem cases" are not in the majority; likewise Mill, who had better ideas than he gave them credit for in his rather preachy way of writing (in Utilitarianism, at least).


(3): The answer here is what you note for "science and technology" in (4), and elaborate in (5).

Most philosophers (likely all of them) seek to elucidate their concepts in such a way as to ensure their concepts are both understood, and not confused with similar but different positions - much like composers who have to prove that they are not copying Beethoven (or Debussy), before people will devote their attention to them in earnest.

Also, the more complicated the subject matter, and the greater the leap forward one philosophical work represents (and Kant is a prime example of this), the more terminology often needs to be introduced to highlight the structure of the argument, and/or its conclusion.


If you do read, for example, the Groundworks on the Metaphysics of Morals, you might see that Kant does not wantonly introduce new terms for no reason: he actually creates a system with terms that interrelate in such a way as to establish the conclusion. And to communicate that system, he had (remember, Kant was before Frege) no way to do this apart from using natural language.

Natural language being what it is, the result was his having to not only introduce many terms, but also explain how he uses the words, which is almost always not the "common sense" of any of them, certainly in English, and likely in German, too.

Just look at how much text it took me to simply explain (what I perceive as) the rationale behind the system, and imagine how much text it would require for someone to establish a logical system with natural language, explain the sense of each word, proceed to extend that system, then recap to make the structure clear (which Kant does, very helpfully - like in sonata form - as does Wittgenstein in the Tractatus), then extend again, etc. By then you'll have arrived at the length of Kant's published works, if not (likely) much more.


I'll even go as far as claim that Kant was tremendously succinct for his era, given how he even included detailed explanations of every single concept of his in his work (or at least in the Groundworks, which I have read). Wittgenstein avoided this (in the Tractatus) by taking advantage of already-established forms (mathematical notation, the logical ordering of his arguments as 1, 1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2, etc.), that Kant did not have available, to make sense, and the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is still a highly demanding work to read.


(6) One can only really know one's explanation of a concept is sufficiently enlightening after it has been published, and by then (particularly in times before philosophical periodicals were invented) it might well be impossible to have a second chance.

Thus, philosophers would (and still often do) err on the side of caution. Under the above premise, can you blame them?


(7) If that is equivalent to saying "do we feel something great must be difficult to read?", then yes. It's relatively easy to make an educated guess on why that is, given how most people feel that the great must also be unapproachable, to satisfy their insecurity.

After all, if something great is not difficult to read, or difficult to listen to, (classical music is an example of a similar case) then why am I not also doing great things, I who am simple? I need a way to feel that the great is beyond me, to know my place in the world.

Here are the two main arguments arguments against suicide that I've read:

1. Suicide is immoral and unethical because many of the reasons for committing suicide – such as depression, emotional pain, or economic hardship – are transitory and can be ameliorated by therapy and through making changes to some aspects of one's life.

2. Suicide is immoral and unethical because we as individuals are not islands; we have responsibiliies/duties to our families or society. (the functionalist view)

*********

Do you accept these arguments.  And if not, why not.

Regarding suicide, I will still ask for your permission not to discuss my personal opinion on the topic: partly because it involves a number of intricate sub-questions well beyond the scope of even this highly "off-topic" thread, and partly because this is the turf of normative ethicists specialised (or in any affair accomplished) in the subject, which I would not want to pretend I belong in - or intrude on - for the present.

Suffice to say, the answer first has to address what "moral" means to begin with (and if such a thing can exist), then examine criteria through which something is characterised as moral, and if or how suicide could satisfy them.

Even answers like the two above, that sound simple, follow from a number of implicit assumptions concerning the other issues I just raised.

[drogulus]

But the issue remains, the knowledge must be acquired, the experience must be accrued. And one cannot argue about philosophy or God, without this foundation any more than one can play a trombone without having the proper lungs. Whilst if one does have the lungs, one usually goes to play in an orchestra, rather than practice in the park. The same, I would think, applies for philosophy and this forum.

    I disagree with the idea that formal knowledge in the academic sense is required to reason philosophically. You do make a good point that orchestras are the place to find most of the good players. That's where I'd look if I wanted to find a bunch of them at once. The best thing I think is to read widely to get a sense of what separates philosophical reasoning from other endeavors. Concerning Gödel and logicism, you didn't have to wait for that to see philosophy as not being primarily concerned with mathematical formalism.

[Renfield]

    I disagree with the idea that formal knowledge in the academic sense is required to reason philosophically. You do make a good point that orchestras are the place to find most of the good players. That's where I'd look if I wanted to find a bunch of them at once. The best thing I think is to read widely to get a sense of what separates philosophical reasoning from other endeavors. Concerning Gödel and logicism, you didn't have to wait for that to see philosophy as not being primarily concerned with mathematical formalism.

No, but it's an excellent proof of why it couldn't, even if people tried. And best of all, it makes no external assumptions.

As for what you disagree with, I never said anything of the such. I said you must know and understand the argument. Reading widely will not suffice, if you do not actively engage with the material in a critical way, don't you agree?

It's like saying reading enough Dostoyevsky will make you a distinguished Russian writer, to an extent.

[drogulus]

No, but it's an excellent proof of why it couldn't, even if people tried. And best of all, it makes no external assumptions.

As for what you disagree with, I never said anything of the such. I said you must know and understand the argument. Reading widely will not suffice, if you do not actively engage with the material in a critical way, don't you agree?

It's like saying reading enough Dostoyevsky will make you a distinguished Russian writer, to an extent.

     That wouldn't be reading widely. Anyway I'm not trying to give a formula for producing a philosopher. I'd like people who are interested to plunge in and do the arguments, follow leads from other posters, and build up knowledge. Over time my own views have undergone changes in this way. People have widely varying aptitude for this. I've read stories about introductory courses in philosophy where a significant proportion of the students can't seem to grasp the point at the most basic level.

      I see philosophical thinking as like historical thinking in a way. Some people have something like a timeline in their heads, and everything that happens gets slotted in along with some idea of the significance of it. Other people see everything as "one damn thing after another" as the saying goes. That's the aptitude part of it. Some people at GMG have more interest than aptitude. That's OK with me. People enjoy classical music at different levels, too. Like me, for example. I enjoy classical music at a different level.

     

[drogulus]

Drogulus,

A different angle for a moment: Don't you think that the "new atheists" like Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens have an important blindspot and that is that their version of atheism is purely negative.... you just strip belief away and go on from there.   

     Let me take another bite at this. What they have in common is opposition to treating the core set of religious propositions as true. That's atheism in a nutshell. Something that many people want to believe is true (perhaps they succeed in believing it) passes no reasonable truth test. That's a negative thesis. It isn't blind to make this the center of the argument, it is the argument. Then they argue other points, like how this state of affairs came about and what the consequences are.

[Renfield]

I'd like people who are interested to plunge in and do the arguments, follow leads from other posters, and build up knowledge.

That would only work if you can guarantee that this "plunging in" will make sense, and have a reference. If you simply have a number of people, none of whom possesses, let's call it "practised knowledge", trading views, that's not going to work by a long shot.

And there's a qualitative difference made by knowing how to do this "argument" thing, to begin with.

Finally, if nothing else, most of the views I see in these sort of threads are generally ancient, and can be superseded or extended significantly simply be opening a basic textbook - let alone a real philosophical work. So even the educational point is somewhat mooted.

People have widely varying aptitude for this. I've read stories about introductory courses in philosophy where a significant proportion of the students can't seem to grasp the point at the most basic level.

Believe me, I live these stories daily. I've had someone tell me they switched to psychology, because while philosophy is looking for answers, "psychology has it right. And I know what's right, by now." Come to think of it, this reminds me of certain discussions in this forum.

I see philosophical thinking as like historical thinking in a way. Some people have something like a timeline in their heads, and everything that happens gets slotted in along with some idea of the significance of it. Other people see everything as "one damn thing after another" as the saying goes. That's the aptitude part of it. Some people at GMG have more interest than aptitude. That's OK with me. People enjoy classical music at different levels, too. Like me, for example. I enjoy classical music at a different level.

Fair enough. But I still cannot, personally, help but consider it a waste of both time on behalf of those plodding in philosophy without the necessary means of engagement with the subject (through natural aptitude, intentional grounding, or both), and "forum space", if you will.

This is a classical music forum. Am I also entitled to open a connectionist cognitive modelling thread?

[jlaurson]

(2): The above having been said, many philosophers, most often in ethics and particularly from the French and, perhaps surprisingly, the post-Enlightenment British tradition, are very wordy. A number of them are self-indulgent, and some of them rather "holier-than-thou".

However, the majority of great philosophers, even if some of them are great "in spite of their way of writing, rather than because of it" (a very apt comment I once read), had clear ideas. Nietzsche and Heidegger, to name a couple of "problem cases" are not in the majority; likewise Mill, who had better ideas than he gave them credit for in his rather preachy way of writing (in Utilitarianism, at least).

We should distinguish between: "Not easy to grasp" and "bad writer". Nietzsche was, in many ways, one of the best writers ever - not only in philosophy but in German literature. Heidegger, however, is German academic writing at its worst... to the point of insulting the reader with his seemingly willfully difficult writing where the form turns content into meaninglessness. Especially with Germans and the French (the latter I can't read in the original, admittedly), I have lost all respect for anyone who cannot write. If you can't say simply what you mean, then chances are you have nothing to say. Even the most difficult concepts can be explained in elegant simplicity. (It just takes work.) And if you have something to say but can't be bothered to cast it into form that is acceptable, then you don't deserve to be heard.

Instead complexity was cherished as a goal in itself -- and academic circles have bought into it for very long. It's like Michelin-star cooks who shit over their food -- and then say: yes, it's very difficult and demanding to discern the greatness of the food's taste. That's why it is so great! [Well, I may have gone overboard just now... but this really tapped into some reservoir of anger, apparently. Perhaps because I feel I was once duped into that, too... and because of the incredible effort it took to teach myself how to write properly again. If you can't tell from this... well, I'm not making use of those skills right now. It's still too early in the morning.  ]

[Homo Aestheticus]

     Let me take another bite at this. What they have in common is opposition to treating the core set of religious propositions as true. That's atheism in a nutshell. Something that many people want to believe is true (perhaps they succeed in believing it) passes no reasonable truth test. That's a negative thesis. It isn't blind to make this the center of the argument, it is the argument. Then they argue other points, like how this state of affairs came about and what the consequences are.

Drogulus,

So do you also agree with Dawkins that theology shouldn't even be considered a subject ?

Is there any value in studying the writings of Aquinas, Tillich or Niebuhr ?  Or should one simply go straight to the true 'intellectual elite', like Plato, Willard Van Orman Quine, Aristotle, Kant, Frege, Wittgenstein, etc ?

[Homo Aestheticus]

What or who created the materials and conditions that produced the Big Bang?
Why does the universe exist?
What is the purpose of existence of the living and non-living entities?
Is there a major force or god that created the universe?

Epicuous,

You might like this, hot off the press:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/03/buddhism-atheism

[arkiv]

"Pressed further, the Buddha is said to have explained that dwelling on such a question is not conducive to the elimination of suffering, which was the sole purpose of his teaching."

Concrete and solar answer.

[Ten thumbs]

"Pressed further, the Buddha is said to have explained that dwelling on such a question is not conducive to the elimination of suffering, which was the sole purpose of his teaching."

True but this could be said of much of human endeavour.
The universe is existence. Its properties and structure are very likely the result of a collapse into stability and therefore did not need to be created. If there are other universes, I don't think we'll ever need to worry about them but I believe they will all be boringly similar to our own. This may due to mathematics. Now I wonder where that came from.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Drogulus,

What they have in common is opposition to treating the core set of religious propositions as true. That's atheism in a nutshell. Something that many people want to believe is true (perhaps they succeed in believing it) passes no reasonable truth test. That's a negative thesis. It isn't blind to make this the center of the argument, it is the argument. Then they argue other points, like how this state of affairs came about and what the consequences are.

O.k. fair enough but how would you answer the following:

"Atheism is for the best part an option of the educated elite. Go spend some time among the poor and uneducated. You may observe, as I have, that there are simple folk who not only derive a sense of dignity from their religion but also a decent moral code about being kind to their fellow beings. Others of course draw different lessons and may become religious bigots... Religion is a complex phenomenon, and its reduction to its evangelical or fundamentalist parody is intellectually dishonest. More fundamentally it betrays woeful ignorance of the human psyche"