[MD] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[Dan Glover]

Hey,

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:23 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> dmb,
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:48 PM, david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is it pragmatic to mythologize an absolute?
>>
>> No, certainly not.
>
>
>
> Jc:  Let's divide this question up into two different aspects - the social
> vs. the intellectual/individual.  Now at the individual/intellectual level,
> I agree with you.  Or rather, see what you mean.  Personally speaking,
> there are many different answers because people are coming from different
> backgrounds and have different needs.

Dan:
If you want to break up the question into two parts, great. Let's
consider it from the social vs intellectual levels. But to conflate
the individual with the intellect is a mistake, at least according to
the MOQ. We as individuals are made up of all four levels, not only
intellect.

Now, to the many different answers... sure, that's quite possible. Yet
you seem to be suggesting all answers are somehow equal. I disagree.
Some are better than others. Just because we each have differing
personal histories doesn't necessarily place us on equal footing so fa
as intellectualizing goes. I'm sure you'll agree.


>JC:
> But on the societal level - where mass-information-control is what keeps
> the industrial wheels turning, you've got to have some common myths.
> Re-ligere is "re-tying" Human communities have always been tied to their
> myths.  I think you can replace an old and dying myth, with a brand new one
> - but what you can't do, is throw out the old and offer NOTHING in its
> place (sorry Marsha) And I think its that very nihilism which creates the
> dogmatic reactions that Baggini is describing in his article.

Dan:
I'd say social media is a two-edged sword. Sure, it can result in
rigid dogmatic control. But at the same time, social media is a great
tool to free the bonds holding us in place. Those so-called common
myths are debunked with regularity. Nothing is sacred. Simultaneously,
social media can result in ever greater recruitment into religious
cults and political followings that heretofore were simply blips under
the radar.

Now, as far as throwing out the old and offering nothing new... isn't
offering up something new exactly  what we are actively engaged in
here at moq.org? I always thought so. The problem arises when we
refuse to let go of that which we've grown so fond of... our
overriding belief system that grounds us in reality. The closer we
come to jumping over the edge, the more tightly we tend to hold on.

>JC:
> So I ask again, is it pragmatic to mythologize an absolute?  Absolute, not
> in the mathematical sense of logically pristine but in the manner of a
> rhetorical question - searching for intersubjective agreement that we
> attain when we deem something "objectively true".  Marx famously quoted
> religion as the opiate of the masses. But so what?   Evidently, people need
> their drugs, in order to cope with the madness of 21st century life.  If
> you think its wise to deprive them, explain why.

Dan:
I just happened to read an article about the Duggars and their problem
with son Josh. Seems the boy was overly fond of his sisters. Naughty
little bugger. Gee. Wonder where he got that from, dad? These people
hide behind their religion like it's a shield. And this isn't some
isolated incident. It occurs with regularity among the so-called
religious communities. But hey, those poor people need their drug so
it's okay. Is that what you really mean to say, John?

>
>
> dmb:
>
>
>
>> The purpose of pragmatism is to distinguish real questions and real
>> problems from meaningless metaphysical disputes.
>
>
> Jc:  smile.  This is what Peirce and Royce tried to explain to James - in
> the realm of logic and "high country of the mind" abstract problems are
> real problems.  By the rules of Realism, anyway, which James followed.
>
> dmb:
>
> Similarly, James' radical empiricism is built to keep out all such
>> metaphysical fictions.
>
>
>
> Jc:  It's a convenient epithet for person uncomfortable with mountain
> climbing.

Dan:
There is an old metaphysical question floating around that asks: If a
tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?
Most philosophical answers argue either yes or no. The MOQ asks: what
tree? How can imaginary trees fall in imaginary forests or in fact do
anything at all? I think that's where pragmatism comes into play. And
I am pretty sure that's what David is talking about when he states
that pragmatism is meant to distinguish real questions from imaginary
ones.

>
> dmb:
>
>
>> In fact, pragmatism is an alternative theory of truth, one that is meant
>> to replace the notions of Truth as objective, singular, eternal, absolute,
>> etc.. In terms of practical effects, the belief in such things is
>> inconsequential or even negative.
>
>
>
> Jc:  YOU, mr. buchanan, are exactly who Baggini is aiming at.  You're so
> proud of being absolutely free, that you've trapped yourself in a very
> tight box indeed.  Destined to be battered by other boxes in boxing matches
> that never can be won or lost.  What you're trying to evade, is what has
> got you boxed.
>
> The practical effect of a community that believes in absolute truth, is a
> community that succeeds as a modern economy.   You absolutize your own
> beliefs, in the very act of de-absolutizing all others!  You can't evade
> the paradox, any more than James could.  If the student who does not
> surpass the master, the master is a failure.

Dan:
In my opinion, most of the anti-scientific vs scientific debates
centering around evolution, global warming, religion, and so forth,
arise not because people are stupid, but because they've been
indoctrinated into believing in the myth of the absolute. It's
especially pervasive in Western culture. Much of what Robert Pirsig
says about subject/object metaphysics falls into that category.
Subjects and objects are all there is. Absolute. Period.

It works well. The English language is grounded in that myth, as is
our court of laws, our educational system, just about everything we
think, see, hear, and feel relates to the absolute-ness of objective
agreement.  And you are right, John. To try and argue one's way out of
that box is virtually impossible. There is always someone who can come
along and use our words against us... just like you are doing here.
But that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and surrender.

>
> dmb:
>
> For James, we can decide what to believe based on our passions, our
>> feelings, but only in very special circumstances, when a decision must be
>> made but cannot be decided on the basis of evidence. This ethical dimension
>> of belief is almost universally recognized; math and logic guys like
>> Bertrand Russell agree with Buddha and the Dali Lama that it is unethical
>> or even taboo to believe without evidence.
>>
>>
>> And that's why it totally matters whether there is any absolute truth or
>> not, why we can not just believe it because we have a thirst and wish it
>> were true.
>
>
>
> Jc:  But the thirst and wish themselves, are what we experience - are the
> absolute that we hold in common that creates our conceptual schemes.  Sure,
> intuition and passion and feeling all go into that.

Dan:
The thirst and the wish for the absolute are force fed to us from the
time we're born. Experience goes beyond that.

>
> dmb:
>
>
>> And if the argument is right, that absolute or objective truth is an
>> incoherent idea that is impossible to ever verify or cash out, and you just
>> decide to believe it anyway,.. well then I guess you don't really care
>> about truth after all.
>
>
>
> Jc:  What I don't see, is how you can make any claims about caring about
> truth, when truth is just a feeling, according to you.

Dan:
Truth is a high quality intellectual pattern that can change when new
evidence arises. By dogmatically holding onto an absolute truth we
effectively cut ourselves off from ever growing and evolving into
something better.

>JC:
> Truth is an  ideal and when it's more than merely relative, laws work,
> courts work and society works.  That is absolutizing truth, as I see it.
> But maybe I should use a different word.  Maybe Royce should have used a
> different word.  Philosophology has it's influence.  We tend to talk in the
> terms we read.

Dan:
The reason why our courts of law in Western culture works so well is
not because it relies on absolute truth, but quite the contrary. The
law can change. We see it all the time. On the other hand, the most
dire dangers we face are constituted of the fanatical and dogmatic
belief in religion and its ability to control the minds and actions of
believers. That is its power: the absolute.

>JC:
> Pirsig's main critique of the term "absolute" was its connotation, which is
> not a logical problem but a rhetorical one and yet completely valid for the
> artist to say how he wants his painting to look.
>
>  The dictionary definition of the term implies a stand-alone thing -
> something non-relative.  Well, I can't buy that either because everything
> that is, is by virtue of its relations.  Nothing stands alone and apart,
> and certainly not truth - that's just asinine, as Pirsig said of the law of
> gravity, in ZAMM.
>
> But  don't think you can simply and blithely do away with a term, and by
> doing so you have solved a problem.  That's the worst kind of
> abstractionism.

Dan:
I don't see anyone trying to do away with the term. Rather, it is in
the elucidation that we come to see the consequences that absolute
thinking and mythbuilding can bring about.

>
>
> dmb:
>
>
>
>> Like Pirsig says, empirical reality keeps us from fooling ourselves, keeps
>> us honest. That's where beliefs are tested, where they're made into truth
>> or falsity. And that's what we can never do with metaphysical posits like
>> the Will or the Absolute. Like I said, the whole idea is epistemologically
>> impossible. It's like basing all the currency on the gold standard even
>> though no actually gold has ever been seen by anyone by only logically
>> inferred from the need for such standards. It's simply too incoherent to be
>> taken seriously.
>>
>>
>>
>> Quality isn't like that. The term refers to direct experience. You don't
>> have to believe in it or prop it up into a metaphysical chess piece.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Jc:  I don't have to get drunk or pick up bar ladies, neither.  We're not
> here because we HAVE to do metaphysics.  But imho, the purpose of
> philosophy is society - we dissect and pick apart the underlying conceptual
> schemes of society and try to think up something better.  Truth is
> intellectual betterness and betterness has its relative aspects and its
> absolute aspects.  You can always do better, no matter how well you do.

Dan:
But that is not an absolute. It is only when we cannot do better that
the term absolute applies, or so goes my thinking. Yes, I understand
my words can be twisted into meaning just the opposite of what I'm
getting at but that is a meaningless exercise in futility.

>
>JC:
> Altho I am feeling like now I have to go get drunk.  Just a feeling, tho.
> It's not the truth.

Dan:
Oh come on, John. Let's go have a few and see if we can't pick us up
some blonde bimbos.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com