Comments | iyindo: From the Brother of "The Master"

iyindo

From the Brother of "The Master"

Feb 02, 2007 06:36

.

The great debate continues:

Epistemology

James defined true beliefs as those that prove useful to the believer. Truth, he said, is that which works in the way of belief. "True ideas lead us into useful verbal and conceptual quarters as well as directly up to useful sensible termini. They lead to consistency, stability and flowing human intercourse ( Read more... )

axo, religion

Comments 4

axo February 2 2007, 20:23:44 UTC

Radical Empiricism appears to be a reaction to the reductionist view of science during the 19th Century, as a complaint that connectivity and causality was not being considered sufficiently. This is not the case with 20th and 21st Century science.

Many times over in Mr. James' writings, he refers to the fact that truth or true processes must lead back to verifiable experiences.

Except for that Will To Believe stuff.

To which I reply:

( ... )

axo February 2 2007, 20:30:05 UTC

I want to correct myself on Relativism, which has many definitions. I'll accept this synthesis definition as being valid, about Relativists:

"1) They all assert that one thing (e.g. moral values, beauty, knowledge, taste, or meaning) is relative to some particular framework or standpoint (e.g. the individual subject, a culture, an era, a language, or a conceptual scheme).

2) They all deny that any standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others."

I agree that no viewpoint is uniquely privileged over another. I will say that some have much less...Net Goodincreaseforsocialandscientificprogress.

iyindo February 3 2007, 01:54:16 UTC

"I agree that no viewpoint is uniquely privileged over another."

I think we'd all like to say that we agree with this, but I don't think anyone really lives this or actualizes it (including you and me). At the end of the day, I still think we both think what we believe is "more right" at the very least.

iyindo February 3 2007, 01:51:22 UTC

Actually, he says that truth and true processes should lead back to "verifying sensible experiences," i.e., experiences that the experiencER feels are "sensible" and "verifying." -- That is, they make sense to him/her and serve a purpose to him/her and are thus, "verified." At least that how I interpreted that.

As for some of the examples you gave of beliefs that cannot/should not be "relativistically accepted" (shall we say), they're all extremely negative and violate human rights (or seek to). In other words, all of the examples you give are physically dangerous to people. If someone believes there's an elf in their doorknob and that serves a purpose for them, who is that harming? You and I can say that is W.R.O.N.G, but *where* is that wrong? What wrong is being committed by whom and to whom? Is it only wrong in the person's head? If so, what difference does that make if it doesn't alter the person's behavior or the person's interaction with the world? Is it still "wrong" if the person was a raging alcoholic and stopped ( ... )