Answering the Big Questions of Life

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bigquest.html ^ | Sue Bohlin

[Alamo-Girl]

Oops! It appears I am in the same ballpark with you in the discussion of truth and reality with tpaine. I should have pinged you to posts 56 and 59.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

I have always put it simple terms. There are mainly 2 worldviews about life, the universe and all that is in it.
1. God (or an intelligent being) created the universe and all therein. or....
2. Everything just happened out of nowhere

Now I have heard of a third view from the hippis "we are not really here, it's just an illusion", lol.

The 4 great questions that everyone has and will ask are :
1. WHO AM I?
2. WHERE DID I COME FROM?
3. WHY AM I HERE?
4. WHERE DO I GO WHEN I DIE?

There answers to all 4 questions will be decided based on one of the worldviews.

[tpaine]

How do you folks define reality?


-- I see reality happening all about me, and think it best defined by what happens when I forget to take it into account..
My actions have consequenses which can hurt. Reality can hurt.

Whereas illusions & imagination cannot hurt unless they are acted upon.

- Thus, we can imagine anything, but only acting upon those illusions will bring reality.

Most who deny reality then blame the pain of their actions on 'God', - or, -- on their fellow man.
- Strange folks.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your views!

I must ask one follow-up question though. In your worldview, is emotional pain - such as loneliness or grief - real if you don't act on it?

[AndrewC]

Faith is only truly irrational when it is atheist faith.

[tpaine]

Thank you so much for sharing your views!

Sure, your emotional pain, loneliness or grief is real to you.. But its not evident, - or real, - to me unless/until you act upon those emotions.
Even then, I'm going to react to your actions, not to your emotions.
Odds are I have no immediate way to judge that your emotions are based on reality.

[DittoJed2]

Which supports what I have said all along, and that is without a philosophical foundation higher than human beings, truth, reality, morality are always going to be subjective because the emanate from subjective human beings. In atheism, there is no OBJECTIVE basis for truth because truth exists as each individual defines it. Morality is the same way. One person may see flying a plane of folks into a building as highly immoral and evil, another may see it has highly moral and good. What OBJECTIVE basis would an atheist have to say that one view is right and another is wrong? The community? Well, the community in Saudi Arabia seems to think it is AOK. Reality, morality, and truth all have to have their definitions in something beyond man and indeed beyond that which man can measure and comprehend. If man hasn't figured out a way to measure it, does that mean it is arbitrary? No. It means that man hasn't figured a way out (or may be limited in his ability) to measure it.

In the Christian worldview, God and His creation are reality. He determines what is moral not by viewing creation and making some sort of a decision. Rather, His reality emanates from Himself- who is unchanging and the only OBJECTIVE standard of truth. Any other view expressed here is subjective as it deals with man's opinion and preferences which are constantly changing.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply! Then, may I add your view of "reality" to my list as follows:

To tpaine, “reality” is that which exists in nature plus for a particular observer, whatever might be his own internalized imaginings, such as emotional pain.

[betty boop]

A most useful list, A-G! Thanks for putting it up!

Wouldn't it be fun if we could find eight people willing to explain and defend one of these eight different possibilities -- the one with which they most "resonate" personally?

Then we could all compare notes!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

Wouldn't it be fun if we could find eight people willing to explain and defend one of these eight different possibilities -- the one with which they most "resonate" personally? Then we could all compare notes!

Oh, I absolutely agree! It would be hugely beneficial to all of us to have the issue discussed at length.

If I remember correctly, Hank Kerchief was the source for the autonomist definition. I believe PatrickHenry is an objectivist and OWK says he is a metaphysical naturalist. And if tpaine accepts the definition for his view, I imagine he'd be willing to defend it.

You are clearly the best of Platonists. I'm thinking Phaedrus could argue for the physicists who see "reality" as an illusion of quantum mechanics.

That would leave three categories: Christian, mystic and Aristotle. There are lots of Christians here who can speak to philosophy as well, perhaps logos or unspun would be willing? I wonder if cornelis is of the Aristotle school?

On the last one, I'm not sure who would own up to being a mystic - but I imagine several could wear the hat for a debate.

Anyway, that's a few suggestions for a picklist if you'd care to ping them and see if they'd want to do it...

[tpaine]

You are free to imagine that's what I wrote, but its not the reality.
Here's a better short version:

Reality is all about us, and it is best defined by the bad things that happen when it is ignored.

[OWK]

Mxylplith the Intergalactic Overlord was enraged by my earlier slight... and has sent 60 mph winds to tear off my vinyl siding.

Just got back from chasing it down in the back yard.

Don't mess with Mxylplith.

[Alamo-Girl]

I'll go with your definition for the list. Thank you!

[tpaine]

Let us pray that his wrath does not fall upon your fiberglass shingles.

[tpaine]

Btw:
Reality is all about us, and it is best defined by the bad things that happen when it is ignored.


See? -- It doesn't pay to ignore warnings about vinyl siding salesmen.

[boris]

Does Christian Theism possess Buddha-nature?

--Boris

[betty boop]

Human history, culture, and the arts produce evidence for worship of everything from the Sun, to sacred insects, to volcanos, mountains, wind, weather, trees, and all manner of imaginary hobgoblins.

OWK, I see our conversation has seriously bogged down. I gather this may have something to do with my ridiculous assertion (from the point of view I impute to you, after long experience that is) that reason, unaided, hasn't got the power to construct a binding moral code.

For what it's worth, basically my argument boils down to a particular understanding of the nature of reason itself. On my view, reason -- ratio -- involves the idea of some kind of empirical experience being tested against a measure that reason itself did not construct for this purpose. Fundamentally, from the moral standpoint, the purpose of the test is to elucidate the basis of justice in human life, personal and social.

Basically, I suggest there cannot be a moral code unless it is founded in the idea of justice. Reason, however, generally cannot obtain from its own observations and experiences (such being mainly confined to "objectively" sensed phenomena) any idea of justice. And justice seems to be the very thing that Nature (not to mention human experience) so often seems to refute in daily practice.

And yet justice  -- paradoxically both metaphysical and "abstract," and yet urgently, keenly, directly necessary to personal human existence everywhere, at all times -- conceptually cannot find its causal principle "in empirics."

Precisely this question was raised and engaged a long time ago, in 4th-century Athens, by Plato -- in Republic VI. Glaukon's speech hits our problem directly on the head. As Eric Voegelin wrote (in Vol. III of Order and History: Plato and Aristotle):
 

"Originally"... men say, to do injustice was good, while to suffer injustice was bad. Then it turned out that evil was greater than the good; when men had tasted of both and found themselves unable to flee the one and do the other, they were ready to agree on laws and mutual covenants; and they called just and lawful what was ordained by the laws. This is the origin and nature [suggests Glaukon] of justice, as a mean between the best (to do injustice without punishment) and the worst (to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation). Justice, therefore, is not loved as a good in itself, but honored because of a man's infirmity [that disposes him] to act unjustly. The strong, the real man would never enter into such an agreement; he would be demented if he did. This is the commonly received view of origin and nature...of justice.

Voegelin's further reflection on this passage:
 

[Thus] justice is exposed to misinterpretation in more than one respect. In the [passage,] justice is explained genetically as the result of weighing the advantages and disadvantages of unregulated action; after due consideration justice will be pragmatically honored as the more profitable course. In order to indulge in the utilitarian calculus, however, man must already "know" what justice is, in the sense that the word "justice" occurs in the environment of the calculating opiner and is accepted by him in a conventional sense. The explanation of a calculated decision for just conduct is not an inquiry into the nature of justice. Hence, one cannot find in the passage a theory of either the nature of law or the law of nature.

Both of which considerations, it seems to me, have direct bearing on human life at all levels. For both constitute what we call "morality." Voegelin has demonstrated that reason cannot bear the weight of the moral code by itself, unaided.

So, where is the aid to come from?

Do you recognize the answer to that question can only be perfectly "subjective," OWK? (Nothing could be more personal than a question like that.) <p>

And, if you recognize the legitimacy of the question, can you still believe unaided reason can answer it, all by itself?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your excellent essay!!! Of course, I agree with you.

However, I suspect the thinking behind a "reasoned" moral code - in the eyes of a metaphysical naturalist - is that for them "reality" is only that which exists in nature, thus any bar to establish a ratio is, to them, a mere arbitrary abstraction. With that worldview, the best that can be hoped for is a negotiation.

That makes me quite sad because what they see as an abstraction, I know to be real.

[Tribune7]

How do you determine right and wrong? . . . By appealing to a rationally derived and objective moral code.

LOL

[Tribune7]

Very good summation. You and BB do nice work.