Last night I was talking with an old friend of mine, an atheist Jew, who is now in the best relationship of her life with a devout Roman Catholic. We talked about the fact that she was more surprised than he was about the fact that their connection transcends their difference in metaphysics. He sees himself as a devout Roman Catholic; she sees him as a good human being.
This conversation reminded me of an older thought that’s been swirling around in my head for a few weeks: the disunity of reason.
It is widely held by philosophers (that peculiar sub-species!) that reason is unified: that the ideally rational person is one for whom there are no fissures, breaks, ruptures, or discontinuities anywhere in the inferential relations between semantic contents that comprise his or her cognitive grasp of the world (including himself or herself as part of that world).
This is particularly true when it comes to the distinction between “theoretical reason” and “practical reason”. By “theoretical reason” I mean one’s ability to conceptualize the world-as-experienced as more-or-less systematic, and by “practical reason” I mean one’s ability to act in the world according to judgments that are justified by agent-relative and also agent-indifferent reasons (“prudence” and “morality”, respectively).
The whole philosophical tradition from Plato onward assumes that reason is unified, and especially, that theoretical and practical reason are unified — different exercises of the same basic faculty. Some philosophers think of them as closer together than others — for example, Aristotle distinguishes between episteme (knowledge of general principles in science, mathematics, and metaphysics) and phronesis (knowledge of particular situations in virtuous action). But even Aristotle does not doubt that episteme and phronesis are exercises of a single capacity, reason (nous).
However, as we learn more about how our cognitive system is actually structured, we should consider the possibility that reason is not unified at all. If Horst’s Cognitive Pluralism is right, then we should expect that our minds are more like patchworks of domain-specific modules that can reason quite well within those domains but not so well across them.
To Horst’s model I’d add the further conjecture: that we have pretty good reason to associate our capacity for “theoretical reason” (abstract thinking and long-term planning) with the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and also pretty good reason to associate our capacity for “practical reason” (self-control and virtuous conduct) with the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (and especially in its dense interconnections with the limbic system).
But if that conjecture is on the right track, then we would expect to find consistency between theoretical reason and practical reason only to the extent that there are reciprocal interconnections between these regions of prefrontal cortex. And of course there are reciprocal interconnections — but (and this is the important point!) to the extent that these regions are also functionally distinct, then to that same extent reason is disunified.
And as a consequence, metaphysics and ethics may have somewhat less to do with each other than previous philosophers have supposed.
walto,
You’re making shit up again. What’s the point of pretending that I raced through your book?
You already got caught claiming that I outed you via your book. Haven’t you learned your lesson?
I think that is an excellent idea.
Apparently I have some kind of adverse effect on you there is no reason to get so all out of sorts.
life is too short
peace
That’s non-responsive to my question. As others as well as I have noted, on the surface reading you appear to be attempting to reify an abstract concept. Since that’s a fallacy, I’m wondering if you mean something else by it. It might help if you would clearly define your terms.
When you say “Truth exists”, do you simply mean that it is possible to make statements that are “in accordance with fact or reality” (the definition of “true”) to some level of accuracy? Do you mean that individual human beings can have a concept labeled “truth”?
If it’s neither of these, what exactly do you mean by “Truth” and in what sense(s) do you claim that it exists?
On a classical treatment (which is severely flawed, but never mind), truth is a correspondence relation between thoughts (or propositions) and the world. This makes truth a relational property. Does this relational property exist? Sure, it exists if both of the relata exist, and not if they don’t.
If no propositions corresponded to the world, there would be no truth. If there were no propositions, there would be no truth. If there were no world, there would be no truth.
Still reification.
The problem involves the map/territory error.
To say that a relationship exists implies that the relationship itself has properties binding on the related objects. This may, in cases, be trivially correct, but it is a dangerous way to talk.
Those two are not really related. We can say that “2+2=4” is true, without requiring that truth exists.
However, I’ll be consistent in my fictionalism. I’ll accept that truth exists as a useful fiction.
That would make God a useful fiction. Yes, I can agree with that. However the usefulness of that fiction is on the low side.
You are vastly overstating the case presented in that article:
You are wrong with regard to at least one atheist.
Bigfoot Panel Skeptics Discussion TAM 2013
By use of our intellect we divide the world into its component parts, by use of the reason we unify it again. You have used your reasoning to come to the correct conclusion that “truth” on its own is an abstract concept. But when through our reasoning we begin to unify reality, which the world is obviously a part of, then we approach truth.
In the preface to the book “Truth and Knowledge”, Rudolf Steiner wrote:
We cannot say that the external world of our sense perceptions is a reality. Thinking gives us the reality and through it we can experience the full reality. The “thing in itself” supposed to be behind the external world is just a metaphysical construct unjustifiably added to the world.
I do not know that any god or gods exist. I have never seen any evidence, or even an internally and externally coherent definition, for such an entity.
Before you respond, I’d like to remind you of a few of the site rules:
– Assume all other posters are posting in good faith. For example, do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading
– . . . accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic
– As is implying that other posters are mentally ill or demented.
And, of course, the prime directive: Park your priors at the door.
So, to participate within the rules, you must assume I’m posting in good faith (which I am). You must assume that I am not being dishonest or deliberately misleading (which I am not). You must assume that I am neither ignorant with respect to my statements about my lack of belief nor am I too stupid to understand what I am saying (roll with it). You must assume that I am not mentally ill or demented (ad arguendo).
Given the rules and my clear statement that I lack belief in a god or gods, your assertion that “Everyone knows he exists” is refuted. You’ve parked your priors by the door. How does this new knowledge change your argument, if at all? That is, what else is different about your mental model of the world now that you know that at least one atheist really does exist?
keiths, Catherine of Sienna has been in the news lately. I’ve been meaning to ask you how you liked my treatment of her.
Plus, as for making shit up, where are your promised Thomasson posts and your evaluation of the evidence you whined for re Trump?
I think you might be in a glass house!!
Let’s ask him.
Oh, wait. That won’t work. If he says he understood you differently, you’ll just say he’s lying. Never mind.
Saying they lack ethics or lack character is OK, though.
This may be the most frightening thing I’ve ever seen on this forum. This is exactly the kind of statement Islamists make to justify the murder of people who draw cartoons of Muhammad. If a concept that you can’t even demonstrate has a real world referent is more important to you than your family, friends, and other human beings, you are both sad and potentially dangerous.
His wife, presuming he has one, can be empirically and objectively demonstrated to exist. There is no objective, empirical evidence for the existence of any gods.
I don’t recall Glen saying that. Most atheists, including myself, merely point out that there is no evidence for any god or gods.
Your unevidenced god didn’t say that. You did.
You need to learn what “evidence” means.
Glen is innocent. You’re the one making the unfounded claims.
Patrick I take you don’t think calling someone a “fuckwit” is insulting or rule-violating?
I completely agree with Glen on the substance, but he’s a hothead and is quick to insult (as I hope he would admit himself). You know, you really are a shitty moderator.
Wow. Maybe this isn’t the forum for you.
imo, fifth believes God is Truth and that God exists and that because God exists Truth exists. So for fifth, he is not reifying the concept of truth. Rather, people fail to understand what he means.
ETA: It’s like people are accusing him of reifying the concept of God by saying that God exists.
Maybe the rest of you just aren’t that scary.
Seriously, the justification of being deeply offended by “blasphemy” has led to a lot of harm to real people lately. One irrational belief can easily lead to others.
Glen and FMM were talking past one another. One of them got angry (unnecessarily, in my opinion).
It’s clearly rule violating, aside from Noyau. I’ve been trying to catch up from around noon yesterday and may have missed some comments. I’ll scroll back and look for that one.
ETA: I didn’t find it in this thread. Is it in another?
No, an atheist simply lacks belief in a god or gods. See the post I wrote on that very topic some time ago.
Yes, you’ve said that, and you are wrong.
You told me is how, God has to fix what is broken,remember? Overwhelm your ability for foolishness.
Perhaps you are correct though not sure about all, any evidence that all people do, not some?
Sure, it also takes effort to believe in a specific God out of the multitudes to choose from. Sometime it even requires the assistance of an omnipotent being. Certainly having no belief does not require divine intervention.
Believing in God does not solve that dilemma
Why because I know the definition of overwhelmed?
b : to overcome by superior force or numbers
c : to overpower in thought or feeling
How did God overpower your ability?
I did once have a glass of 20yr old Pappy Van Winkle does that count? I did lose my ability to give a shit, temporarily.
That’s still a reification of “truth”. I’m hoping he clarifies his meaning.
I was wrong. (See how easy that is?) The insults I was referring to are all in the Noyau and Moderation threads, where I take it they are allowed.
However, a number of your own insults have found their way onto other threads.
LoL.
Oh, sorry, I guess a host of false accusations isn’t cause for concern.
We weren’t talking past each other, he was making up claims that had nothing to do with what I said. He even half admitted as much, saying that he should begin to treat me individually. No kidding. That’s basic decency, while he was just attacking evil atheists, not caring what I had actually written.
How is a person supposed to respond to shit that has nothing to do with what one said?
Look, if you’re going to make a claim you should be able to back it up, rather than ignore the facts and making things up. I didn’t make false accusations, he made a host of them. You don’t care, I know, but that’s your bit of unfairness and falsity.
Glen Davidson
If you’re going to keep making unsupported assertions about my behavior, I’m going to call you on your dishonesty. The evidence of it is in your own comments.
It is kind of funny, because it shows the blinkers on the Believer. Who defines “atheism” as “the wicked and false claim of not believing in the One True God, namely mine, which nobody can possibly disbelieve in.”
Since it is impossible to disbelieve, everyone is safe from the threat of hell.
What a relief.
You should look up “autological.” And if you think everyone who works for a government entity is “making unsupported assertions about your behavior” and may therefore be insulted willy-nilly by your holiness, you’re even more of a megalomaniac than I figured you to be.
Libertrollian, thy name is Patrick.
God does not have to fix anything. God can if he chooses do anything (provided that it is not against his nature).
peace
If you have a clarification question just ask.
Truth is not an abstraction he is a person. I’m not sure how much more clear I could be.
Like I often say in the end this will always come down to the problem of other minds. I understand that you don’t think of Truth as a person and I can’t help you with that handicap you would have to meet him to understand
peace
If there were no propositions would it be true that there were no propositions?
think man
It’s almost as if you are acting like reason is not unified 😉
peace
Well, I see TSZ has finally gotten back to normal!
I’m not the one who isn’t thinking.
Consider the following statement, S.
S: Let there be a class of worlds, K, in which there are no propositions. Then if a world belongs to K, nothing is true in that world.
S is true of K, even though there no truths in any K-world.
So truth is fiction. Interesting
Is it true that truth is fiction?
Or is it false that truth is fiction?
Is it true that it is false that truth is fiction?
Does anyone else have a headache? 😉
peace
Is it true that there are no propositions in that world?
So you are saying that truth does exist even if there are no propositions?
That is what I thought I said.
Peace
I must confess, I do not understand your concept of truth. In my world (as a writer), here’s what truth means:
To clarify, here’s my response to a question you posed earlier:
Not according to my understanding of the term “truth”.
Sure it does.
You are not going to make me explain that again are you?
Hint ask your self if an omnipotent God could reveal something to you such that you could know it.
With kindness and grace and love. Certainly not with force
peace
Could something be true even if you did not understand what the term meant?
I never cease to marvel at folks who think that external reality is contingent on their own internal understanding
peace
FMM: Would truth exist if there were no statements?
Robin: Not according to my understanding of the term “truth”.
Yet your own source only mentioned statements in one of it’s three definitions.
I don’t have a headache. But then I’m not going around in circles.
Some questions are not true/false questions.
I agree,
Are some answers true and false at the same time and in the same respect?
peace
I don’t understand the question.
I understand
Have a good evening
peace
If you cannot distinguish between what is true of a possible world and what is true in that possible world, then I’m afraid I cannot help you.
I did ask:
That’s non-responsive to my question. As others as well as I have noted, on the surface reading you appear to be attempting to reify an abstract concept. Since that’s a fallacy, I’m wondering if you mean something else by it. It might help if you would clearly define your terms.
When you say “Truth exists”, do you simply mean that it is possible to make statements that are “in accordance with fact or reality” (the definition of “true”) to some level of accuracy? Do you mean that individual human beings can have a concept labeled “truth”?
If it’s neither of these, what exactly do you mean by “Truth” and in what sense(s) do you claim that it exists?
Answers would be nice.
In standard English, “truth” is an abstract noun. If you’re going to use idiosyncratic meanings for words, that’s fine. You do, however, need to define them clearly.
Hmmm. Supposing there are possible worlds, wouldn’t 2+2=4 be true either in or of every one of them? If IN, does that mean that there must be propositions in every possible world or that there can be truths where there are no propositions?
If we say that such propositions are only true OF (rather than in) some world, does that mean there must be some world where there are propositions that are true of every world?