"And I say also this. I do not think the forest would be so bright, nor the water so warm, nor love so sweet, if there were no danger in the lakes."- Hyoi, Out of Silent Planet, p. 76
"It is absurd to hold that a man ought to be ashamed of being unable to defend himself with his limbs but not of being unable to defend himself with speech and reason, when the use of reason is more distinctive of a human being than the use of his limbs."- Aristotle, Rhetoric -Book I, 1355.b1
"One of the most important uses of worldview analysis is self-analysis. To become conscious of your fundamental nature of reality, to be able to tell yourself just what you believe about God, the universe, yourself, and the world around you—what else could be more important? You would be able to live the proverbial examined life. Naming your elephant does not guarantee that you are right, but it does mean that you know where you stand."- James Sire, Naming the Elephant
A question is really an ambiguous proposition; the answer is its determination. The can be only a certain number of alternatives that will complete its sense. In this way the intellectual treatment of any datum, any experience, any subject, is determined by the nature of our questions, and only carried out in the answers.
In philosophy this disposition of problems is the most important thing that a school, a movement, or an age contributes. This is the “genius” of a great philosophy; in its light, systems arise and rule and die. Therefore a philosophy is characterized more by the formulation of its problems than by its solution of them. Its answers establish an edifice of facts; but its questions make the frame in which its picture of facts is plotted. They make more than the frame; they give the angle of perspective, the palette, the style in which the picture is drawn – everything except the subject."- Suzanne K. Langer: Philosophy in a New Key: A Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite, and Art (via fuckyeahphilosophy)
"The real discovery is the one which enables me to stop doing philosophy when I want to. The one that gives philosophy peace, so that it is no longer tormented by questions which bring itself into question."- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, § 133
"Nobody took Descartes seriously and all his ideas were rejected."-
one of my philosophy profs
-smart guy, but obvious biases
When I think about all the suffering in the world - past, present, future….I just break down….and think WHY!?
One thing I know…God can’t be indifferent to this suffering. God cares. God cares so much that he inserted himself into all of that suffering. Jesus suffered. Jesus suffered for us.
I don’t know the purpose of all of this suffering. But I know that God loves us.
I have these two mewithoutyou lines from “Fox’s Dream of the Log Flume” stuck in my head:
"No, I don’t know if I know
though some, with certainty insist
'no certainty exists'”
"so by now I think
it’s pretty obvious that there’s no God
and there’s definitely a God!”
This sums up my normal state of mind. Yet the doubt has actually turned in on itself. So I continue to doubt all things except that which is properly basic. Except I doubt that to. Sometimes it’s methodic. Sometimes it’s ordinary incredulity. Sometimes academic. Yet I stand fast. The philosophical and the ordinary often blur.
Wittgenstein so aptly said, ““A doubt without an end is not even a doubt”
We can only doubt when there is reason to.
If a person were to doubt that a certain animal was extinct. They could go on a journey and attempt to find this animal.
Yet philosophical doubt actually becomes so broad that it is practically nonsensical.
If we all found ourselves within the Matrix.
I could doubt the world we were living in. And I could say that it was some kind of computer generated illusion.
But what evidence would I really have for this claim?
(unless something extraordinary happens)
In the latter case I’m not doubting some fact about the world (whether an animal is extinct or not,) I’m doubting the entire world. Thus, the scope of philosophical doubt that includes all propositions of a category has no end. In order to have disbelief about something there must be something that is believed.
Yet even now, the oddity of it all is clear. In the Matrix you may have no reason to doubt, yet doubting would invariably be the “most true” thing you could do in such a world.
So I continue to doubt, and to believe, and to think. I follow logic and I follow emotion. Because when we talk about the limits of human knowledge, the best answer is this:
We don’t know.
Anything beyond this is faith.
How do people absolutely deny the principle of bivalence. I just…what?
How do you make any claims after doing so?
What I see happen all the time:
Person A: “There are no absolutes.”
Person B: “X is true.”
Person A: “X is wrong, there is no such thing as absolutes. Duh.”
Person A: “Y is true.”