The Threat of Subjective Epistemology, The Dream of Objectivity
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 вер 2024
- What's the first thing that happened to followers of Jesus? They lost their jobs:
19 “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” 20 At once they left their nets and followed him.
When you allow an institution to judge for you, to decide for you, you trust the institution even above your own self. If the institution is true and avoids all error, then that's a sensible move. But if it isn't the one institution that's unlike all other institutions, then you've given up the most sacred thing, which is your own sense of reality and truth, your own reason. This podcast understands the idea that "subjective truth" leads to a potential proliferation of wild & crazy justifications for all manner of behaviors. That can be a problem. But the alternative poses equal difficulties and dangers, and it seems to me like a philosophical sleight of hand, imagining that we can avoid returning to the level of personal judgment -- even that first act of faith in the institution, whatever institution it is you trust, must come out of a personal/subjective judgment. Well, think about these things with me, if you like. Or just ask your priest to watch for you and tell you what you're supposed to think:
Yes, of course, that's a joke... don't get all mad. But it seems true to me at some level. What do you have this thinking organ for, gentlemen?
Join my Patreon: www.patreon.co...
Very nice scenery
I decided long ago as a teen I have to follow Truth wherever it leads or whatever it reveals even if it destroys my most precious notions. But doing so also leads one right of any church at some point unless you're a monk and choose to be a hermit. Then no one will bother you about your most recent understandings and insights.
Well said. Indeed any persuasion we take on is our consent, and consenting on one side of a conflict is dissent to the other. So why forsake our critical faculties?
- Your Quality Apologist
Btw I wonder if you saw Brad from Carolina's video on 12 step programs..
@@yqafree link?
@@GodwardPodcast The first one is shortest but probably too reduced. The others are very long. Anyway just in regards to the 12 step/AA reference was why I wondered.
ua-cam.com/video/Iebk8-tpFnE/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Q4387_nC7oc/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/3jABxHVGeAg/v-deo.html
We are born into families and communities (to say nothing of churches and governments and Science-ists) and need to figure out a place within them. So many people just assent, and who can blame them? The "misfit" is someone who doesn't fit. If we see this world as a reflection of a higher reality or as only certain aspects of that higher reality, and we seek that higher reality in any way then we must necessarily be misfits of some kind.
Right, and ostracism is akin to death -- so there are big incentives against asking too many questions. I'm hoping there's a way to do it among friends such that a gradual approach to truth is the final product. Trust the dialectic!
@@GodwardPodcast I try but it is a glacial process.
Confirmation as Pentecost is sooooo ridiculous.
Re impulses. The sage Ben Zoma asks 'Who is strong? He who can control his (evil) impulses, as it is written: 'He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he who rules his spirit than he who conquers a city.' (Proverbs 16:32)
Yeah, clearly I need to refine the nomenclature here, because I don't mean "just follow every impulse." But I do think there's a way to live where you live more "in the flow" than by a kind of algorithm (Law)...
Subjective vs. objective reasoning I think just relies on credibility. How credible is the market vs. your own view of the market. Usually ithe market is right, you can't beat the market. How testable is it? This just comes down to scientific analysis. If you are talking about mysticism or religion personal faith could influence your views. Do you have any revelation of some sort? You could draw lots.
Pure Objectivity is part of Psychosis, a mental state that cannot clarify Reality, something that contains Subjectivity. How do I know?
Because Psychologists/Psychiatrists often use particular settings to bring patients out of Psychosis who have been experiencing it for a long time. Subjectivity is arranged for patients and back to normal they go. How I know I'm not being Purely Objective? Because it works. Funny enough, the trip is often seen as a Dream.
Interesting -- so just "change the scenery," and the internal/subjective state changes? Seems related to the "set & setting" advice about using psychedelics. Still, I imagine that there might be certain subjective orientations that people actually do carry from one setting to another?
Im starting to think that the idea that individual=subject is wrong. Reality imprints its own rules and limitations on us, not the other way around. perception ultimately starts on the outside and enters in.
Possibly, but it seems to hit different people differently. Or they have different interpretations of it. And I can’t figure out how to sort these differences out in a way that feels *objectively* true. It’s just one guy’s word against another’s.
@@GodwardPodcast Yeah it seems to be like everyone has their own perception of truth. But I think it's because the world is made of different subjects and influences that affect us differently. That doesn't mean there's no coherent reaitly or meaning just a complex relationship of different angles so to speak. It's sort of like the perenalist view of religion. there are different points of connection but one singularity in spirituality.
@@bigbingo5837 the irony is that people who become members of an institution because they think they have the agreed on objective truth, are still being subjective, it’s all subjective individual, guided by another individual, basing their beliefs on prior individuals, who had subjective experiences of God, and I doubt Augustine would agree the Catholic Church position today for example. The thing is it’s not subjective vs objective, both are real. Interpretations are all we have. And friends to bounce ideas off. It’s about whether you trust prior ideas as infallible, or as the right synthesis or meta analysis. But really it’s all one, it’s inner/outer not dualist. And some think it’s all outer, in church tradition, some think it’s all inner in the self. Neither are right. It’s in the one who is inner and outer, Christ, God.
Judaic apologetics would explain the contrast between subjective and objective experience necessitates a collective revelation, (Sinai). All the people were assembled and collectively said 'we will do, and we will hear EX 24:7 .' In that order. FIrst accepting , then accepting the command to 'This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth and shall meditate upon them day and nighJosh 1:8t' Why meditate on them post facto? .........It's nancy pelosis version of ' we need to pass the legistlation to see whats in it.' what wisdom or if one thinks lack of it is being expressed by counter intuitively inversing acceptance and understanding?
What’s with all the stuff in Ex 20 about not letting the people touch or go up the mountain - they only saw god as Thunder? But Moses (and Aaron?) saw him and were able to write down his words? To me this doesn’t quite solve the problem. Although I imagine the Israelites who saw the big thundercloud felt that they saw proof? But it becomes a “they said so” very long game of telephone after a while, right? The Torah as the institution.
@@GodwardPodcast In the great football games yesterday two teams assembled under team structures yet still w some vestigial/necessary hierarchircal structures: head coach, OC, Def Coord, QB WR etc etc. all the people assembled (fans) not allowed on the field, yet witnessed the game. They cannot question what they saw, even if at end of game Maholmes whispered something to Josh Allen for example (Moses /Aaron)
You write : 'the people only saw him as Thunder (Cloud in fact), but moses and (aaron?) saw him and were able to write down his words.
just playing devils advocate, or like doing a differential diagnosis in medicine, i would counter to that question, that no, Moses could not see God either , rather 'Moshe (Moses) asks God "Show me your glory." God responds that He cannot be seen by any human being. But, God tells Moshe, "Stand in the cleft of the rock" and "you will see My back, but My face must not be seen." (Exodus 33: 17-23)
So i guess your critique would have to a more nuanced version of , everyone was there but Moses had a front row seat, even though was an obstucted view, while the Israelites could only see a fog and hear the public address system.
@@half-galician2954 There wasn't a William James among them to make the case that special revelation is fine & dandy as it regards the individual to whom it is given, but it has no authority over others... I mean you see the problem, of course. For millennia, since then, others have made equally extraordinary claims about mystical revelations from god -- I even had an experience I consider to have been a sort of contact with the divine in 2007 -- but you can't believe them all without scattering your understanding of what god is or what he intends for us into a million irreconcilable piece. Which is why... you either have to believe an institution, or you need to get the revelation for yourself!