Luiseach

John, for clarification: are you arguing that there is or isn't a God-like view?

Further, why would we even want to strive for a 'perfect' view of anything? If everything is, as you suggest, subjective, then how on earth is it possible for us to achieve perfect objectivity?

If I'm misreading your post, I apologise in advance, but you seem to be suggesting that there is a standard of objectivity beyond the subjective human realm. Am I right in thinking this is what you're suggesting?

John Page

I'm suggesting the god-like view is an illusion harbored within each of us. i.e. The god like view is merely an intersubjective concept or "truth". (Note: not an argument for or against theism per se).
See point 5 in my post.
No. I'm offering ideas as to why humans migth think that there is.

If this is still too dense, please fire away!

Cheers, John

Luiseach

I would describe this harboured 'god-like view' as an illusion, yes, but even more importantly as one of the more insidious effects of theism, and indeed of all rigid authoritarian ideologies; the baggage of belief systems cannot always be shrugged off so easily. The pomo movement has made inroads, however, by emphasising a multiplicity of views over a monolithic one. The trick - if trick it is - is to resist the egotistical impulse to push one's point-of-view as the point-of-view, superior to all others.

Yes, I saw it. And I'm responding to it by asking why should we as human beings even want to achieve a godlike view? Why do we feel the need to strive for perfection? I'm asking for an expansion on the theme. My own opinion is that the so-called search for perfection or objectivity is itself a symptom of dogma.

You say,

'However, believing that a "perfect" view exists encourages us to strive and improve ourselves toward that view - illustrating again the pragmatic nature of religious beliefs.'

The idea of perfection in any sense of the term is a dangerous one - this is what leads, not to self-improvement, but rather towards the marginalisation of difference...the construction of the 'centre' vs. the 'other(s)'.... Pragmatic or not, then, if religious beliefs encourage a move towards some unreachable standard of 'perfection' (in the person of the godhead), this is what lies at the heart of intolerance, rigidity, processes of inclusion/exclusion, and dogma.

I didn't find it dense in the least. I am agreeing with you and adding my own criticism of the monolithic viewpoint which is often encouraged within religious belief systems.

John Page

I'm arguing that the evolution of mankind has resulted in brains that harbor the god-like view - this being a contributory cause of theism (I think you have it the other way round).

Furthermore, I would argue that this mentality has also resulted in objectivism and indeed the other 'isms that require or employ a priori assumptions in their axioms. One might also argue that such mentality is evident in man's egocentrism - which may have negative effects but efficacious for survival of *me*.
My attitude is that reality is the "jury" of perfection. That is to say, if the human mind judges what is perfection (for itself/itselves) then its test is whether the decisions made on the basis of those aesthetics are beneficial (to survival, multiplication etc.). This is the game of life.

However, reality is an ever changing scene so one's "perfection" should change accordingly - even if the evaluation criteria are unchanged. To not adjust one's sense of perfection is to allow the negative side of dogma. Final note - sticking to one's values for long term benefits can be viewed as a beneficial dogma!
Do not be dogmatic about bigotry, or a bigot about dogmaticism!

Cheers, John

Amos

Hello Luise I think forgot this too.

The involutionary yang priod is between 1 and 6 and from 6 to 12 is the evolutionary yin period. I can be called the effeminate period (did you not suggest "anima" here?) because the ego has raptured and that is why Joyce went into the netherworld of his soul to find new life. It is also why he left Ireland, religion and friends (he was "a-social") because his ego is what made him the Irish Catholic that now had raptured.

At 6 begins Apollo, or Geneva, or purgatory with paradiso to follow at the 9th hour, or, also spring with summer to follow.

From 1 to 3 was Eve, which is the well balanced period of life that resembles the first stanza of "A River Merchants Wife: A Letter." From 3 to 6 is Adam and you will probably find that in this chapter the turmoil begins in the life of Stephen that ends in the darkest period of life which is symbolized with midnight, midwinter, midlife = 666 which is "the mark of man" in the image of God.

Joyces "Portrait" ends here while "A River Merchants Wife : a Letter just foreshadows this end but goes well into the period of darkness.

6 Is Mary or the second Eve who now destroys the tower of Babel (Catholicism) but out of which new life was found.

9 Is Christ as the second Adam and this is where paradiso begins and at 12 we return to dust at the second death.

phaedrus

Language => The very means moi is using to convey this thought to you

phaedrus

hugo

You ought to realize by now that i'll adopt any position here if i think it'll stimulate debate, even unto the ridiculous

ok.....but there can be no progress in the discussion if we dont define our stands or explain/crticise the same and come to some conclusions. For example, i have listed out the problems with olsen/fish's position, so either you point out the problems with the problems i have listed or agree that they are valid problems and hence make adjustments to your view (which was till now olsen/fish)


It's slow arriving... Fish is saying that rhetoric and not a little faith convinces, while more rhetoric serves to hide our blushes. What say you to that charge?

Rhetoric or selling comes into picture only after both parties or one of the chaps says "my objective is to convince the other of X for Y reasons" Only after this the selling starts....the process of selling can vary from case to case...mere rhetoric or force or opinion of the majority...etc

So PoMo should be more positive?

Positive in the sense "constructive". Dont just deconstruct, reconstruct as well or propose an alternate model. No point only cribbing that things are not right

Meantime, can you recall what Putnam said in his own defence when he wrote that comment

In the sense? ("Why Reason Can't be Naturalized?", in Realism and Reason;Truth and History ;Representation and Reality )

Regarding your god's eye view post

The whole issues is rorty's statements on the history of philosophy and his interpretation of the same is equivlanet to saying ....no GEV from a GEV. Why should one listen to rorty? Has he formulated an epistemological model which denies it is an epistemology?

IN a hurry laters...

Luiseach

Yes, I think that is a better way of looking at it. The self-preservation or 'me, myself and I' instinct developing into the theistic one...the 'I'm right cuz my God/Godess/Gods say(s) so' mentality.

I agree with this. Egocentrism does improve one's chances of survival, but when taken too far, it can lead to destructive effects that could undermine the survival of the group/society, and ultimately of the individual him/herself...seeing oneself as the 'most important person in the world' has a potentially nasty flipside to it.

Yep, I agree with this. Of course, as you point out here:

'Reality' (or environmental factors) can and does influence what we judge to be 'good,' 'right,' 'valid,' 'beneficial,' or 'desirable.' Our criteria can change according to our needs and motives, but we cannot avoid being judges of value...thought itself involves value judgements.

Luiseach

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Page
Perhaps a definition of "language" and a new thread?

Cheers, John
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



lol...this response made me laugh. No ambiguity whatsoever. Simple, direct, to-the-point. I like it.

Luiseach

Hmmm....using the Bible to analyse literature...don't you find this approach restrictive to your understanding of the complexity of literary texts?

You wouldn't have that original essay you wrote handy, would you? It would be interesting to know what your thesis was, for the sake of discussion.