Criteria of Truth
Here is some amateur philosophizing in case you haven't had enough of that on LJ.
gallows_brother made a good point in this thread (where you can read the whole comment rather than just the main point I'm responding to here) and I thought I'd share my response as a post because it brings up another topic of potential discussion that I find interesting.
Academia (e.g. people at Sorbonne, U of Amsterdam, and Exeter) seems to be moving strongly toward identifying western esoteric philosophy as a third stream of western thought which sits between religious and scientific thought. It's an interesting and compelling way to look at it. I'm only modestly familiar with the ideas, so hopefully I haven't gotten things wrong in what follows. If I did get it wrong, I trust you all will let me know :)
gallows_brother wrote: "It's way too easy to experience a phenomenon and say 'Aha! I know what that means.'" To this I responded:That is very true and I don't disagree at all.
The kind of seeking and finding that I'm talking about is different from examining phenomena and coming to conclusions about them. Certainty doesn't need phenomenal evidence per se because it is self evident in all phenomena.
When one seeks evidence to validate it, that is the process of doubt rather than certainty, an equally valid operation in the epistemology of the scientific paradigm, which I agree must be subjected to the rigors of the scientific method to guard against the delusion you are very right to warn about.
I am suggesting here though that certainty partakes of the esoteric, revelatory paradigm and is a wholly different kind of knowledge than what science affords, with different criteria for truth, though it is simultaneously informed by, and informs, both religious and scientific thinking.
gallows_brother made a good point in this thread (where you can read the whole comment rather than just the main point I'm responding to here) and I thought I'd share my response as a post because it brings up another topic of potential discussion that I find interesting.
Academia (e.g. people at Sorbonne, U of Amsterdam, and Exeter) seems to be moving strongly toward identifying western esoteric philosophy as a third stream of western thought which sits between religious and scientific thought. It's an interesting and compelling way to look at it. I'm only modestly familiar with the ideas, so hopefully I haven't gotten things wrong in what follows. If I did get it wrong, I trust you all will let me know :)
gallows_brother wrote: "It's way too easy to experience a phenomenon and say 'Aha! I know what that means.'" To this I responded:That is very true and I don't disagree at all.
The kind of seeking and finding that I'm talking about is different from examining phenomena and coming to conclusions about them. Certainty doesn't need phenomenal evidence per se because it is self evident in all phenomena.
When one seeks evidence to validate it, that is the process of doubt rather than certainty, an equally valid operation in the epistemology of the scientific paradigm, which I agree must be subjected to the rigors of the scientific method to guard against the delusion you are very right to warn about.
I am suggesting here though that certainty partakes of the esoteric, revelatory paradigm and is a wholly different kind of knowledge than what science affords, with different criteria for truth, though it is simultaneously informed by, and informs, both religious and scientific thinking.