The Bible on The History Channel (Read 414 times)

     

     But why is happiness good?  [other good stuff, too]

     

    A pragmatist would look at a question like this and say: philosophical fallacy!! -- in other words, a question asked for the sake of perpetuating a philosophical debate, rather than a question oriented by true inquiry or a real problem.

       

       

      --So I'll leave it there.  Where I stand now is that I believe in the strong possibility of a greater power, but I consider the bible, (or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or the many other religious works and beliefs out there) humankinds way to 'try' and comprehend or relate to this 'higher power'.   Simply put, there are thousands of different religions out there (and all are free to practice their religion), but only one of these religions can be right out of the thousands. (or possibly 0 of them are right.  We really cannot know as humans of course).  100 men of 100 different religions all feel that they are 100% right, but we know this cannot be true.

       

       

      Well stated- and one of the main reasons I don't subscribe to any particular religion.

      Here's an offshoot that I've considered but never really resolved- I assume religious folks would say to lead a good and moral life you must follow the teaching of the church (or whatever).  I've seen and known plenty of folks- most of my friends- who aren't particullary religious who lead exlempary lives in all respects- agnostic and athiests who are honest, faithfull to thier spouses, hardworking, compassionate, etc.- all the stuff that is supposed to be part of religion teaching, but they are doing it without any religious faith. What to make of that?


      Interval Junkie --Nobby

         

        A pragmatist would look at a question like this and say: philosophical fallacy!! -- in other words, a question asked for the sake of perpetuating a philosophical debate, rather than a question oriented by true inquiry or a real problem.

         

        Yes.  Logical positivism and A.J. Ayer agree.  Though, they generally think the question is nonsensical, rather than just useless.

         

        Though, I do wonder how pragmatists respond to Hume and G.E. Moore regarding the is/ought naturalist fallacy.  Maybe they end up in a shouting match on who can scream "FALLACY!" the loudest . . . except that they're all dead.

         

        Oddly, I don't see how dismissing the problem has moved the philosophical ball forward: perhaps because the livelihood of philosophers is dependent on ignoring a pragmatic solution. Wink

        2014 Goals:  sub-3 Marathon 

        Current Status 11/10: Back to building up miles.  Junk feels mostly okay.  Kinda.

           

          Yes.  Logical positivism and A.J. Ayer agree.  Though, they generally think the question is nonsensical, rather than just useless.

           

          Though, I do wonder how pragmatists respond to Hume and G.E. Moore regarding the is/ought naturalist fallacy.  Maybe they end up in a shouting match on who can scream "FALLACY!" the loudest . . . except that they're all dead.

           

          Oddly, I don't see how dismissing the problem has moved the philosophical ball forward: perhaps because the livelihood of philosophers is dependent on ignoring a pragmatic solution. Wink

           

          No, the pragmatist dismissal is different from the positivist dismissal--more open-ended, as they wouldn't presume to have the same level of certainty about what is or isn't a practical question.

           

          A question like "Why is happiness good?" might be a practical and urgent question, but then again it might not be. For me, the question of whether happiness is good is pretty settled. If it's not settled for you, then we could talk about it, but my guess is that you like most others don't really ask this question of yourself in your ordinary daily living. We go about pursuing happiness as a matter of routine and assume it to be good.

           

          In other words the belief that happiness is good works for all of us and usually only gets problematized within the particular context of "a deep philosophical discussion" wherein we uproot our common sense presumptions just for the hell of it. This "uprooting" is the philosophical fallacy.

           

          [yes, I realize we are far, far away from the Bible as history or what have you.]


          Interval Junkie --Nobby

             

            No, the pragmatist dismissal is different from the positivist dismissal--more open-ended, as they wouldn't presume to have the same level of certainty about what is or isn't a practical question.

             

            A question like "Why is happiness good?" might be a practical and urgent question, but then again it might not be. For me, the question of whether happiness is good is pretty settled. If it's not settled for you, then we could talk about it, but my guess is that you like most others don't really ask this question of yourself in your ordinary daily living. We go about pursuing happiness as a matter of routine and assume it to be good.

             

            In other words the belief that happiness is good works for all of us and usually only gets problematized within the particular context of "a deep philosophical discussion" wherein we uproot our common sense presumptions just for the hell of it. This "uprooting" is the philosophical fallacy.

             

            [yes, I realize we are far, far away from the Bible as history or what have you.]

             

            I believe in the preface to Kant's Groundwork he talks about how his own work on morals is relatively useless because every farmer knows the right thing to do.  Later he goes on with: . . . the great thing about these activities of common sense is that in them it has as good a chance of getting it right as any philosopher has - perhaps even a better chance, because the philosopher doesn’t have any principle that common sense lacks and his judgment is easily confused by a mass of irrelevant considerations so that it easily goes astray.

             

            And actually, I strongly disagree that happiness is a worthy goal.  I would even say it doesn't "work for us" -- which is part of the contemporary problem.  So at this point we can re-engage pragmatism because unlike with the Postitivists, the question is now useful.  In fact, if my understanding is correct ( and it may well not be), Pragmatism would have no problem using Kantian tools to figure out a strategy for a good-enough ethical stance.  The difference being, that while Kantians want to settle the question, Pragmatists just care to have a working solution that they will tweak along the way.

             

            btw: Eudaimonia is more up my ally.

            2014 Goals:  sub-3 Marathon 

            Current Status 11/10: Back to building up miles.  Junk feels mostly okay.  Kinda.

              A bit of an aside but....contrary to Spencer's "survival of the fittest," or Dawkins' selfish gene, a growing body of work is arguing for the importance of empathy and cooperation for survival in nature.  Primatologist Frans De Waal's work is especially relevant here, and he recently produced an interesting fusion of evolutionary biology and moral philosophy that's worth a read.

              zonykel


                Not sure why you say contrary... ants display cooperation... Those are genes worth passing on among ants... Empathy genes are worth passing on if they help the species survive.

                 

                i don't think the concept of survival of the fittest necessarily applies to individuals. Wolves hunt in packs, and again, passing on those genes helps out the species.

                 

                as far as the selfish gene, I haven't read it, but what do you suppose it means? Sounds to me like it's the genes that are trying to "survive" to get passed on from generation to generation, using us (and other living organisms) as vehicles of transmission. But obviously, genes aren't "selfish", but the way in which they survive imitates selfishness, if you will. Perhaps someone who's read the book can correct me.

                 

                A bit of an aside but....contrary to Spencer's "survival of the fittest," or Dawkins' selfish gene, a growing body of work is arguing for the importance of empathy and cooperation for survival in nature.  Primatologist Frans De Waal's work is especially relevant here, and he recently produced an interesting fusion of evolutionary biology and moral philosophy that's worth a read.


                HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                  as far as the selfish gene, I haven't read it, but what do you suppose it means? Sounds to me like it's the genes that are trying to "survive" to get passed on from generation to generation, using us (and other living organisms) as vehicles of transmission. But obviously, genes aren't "selfish", but the way in which they survive imitates selfishness, if you will. Perhaps someone who's read the book can correct me.

                   

                   

                   google to wikipedia gives one explanation

                  It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

                     

                    I believe in the preface to Kant's Groundwork he talks about how his own work on morals is relatively useless because every farmer knows the right thing to do.  Later he goes on with: . . . the great thing about these activities of common sense is that in them it has as good a chance of getting it right as any philosopher has - perhaps even a better chance, because the philosopher doesn’t have any principle that common sense lacks and his judgment is easily confused by a mass of irrelevant considerations so that it easily goes astray.

                     

                    And actually, I strongly disagree that happiness is a worthy goal.  I would even say it doesn't "work for us" -- which is part of the contemporary problem.  So at this point we can re-engage pragmatism because unlike with the Postitivists, the question is now useful.  In fact, if my understanding is correct ( and it may well not be), Pragmatism would have no problem using Kantian tools to figure out a strategy for a good-enough ethical stance.  The difference being, that while Kantians want to settle the question, Pragmatists just care to have a working solution that they will tweak along the way.

                     

                    btw: Eudaimonia is more up my ally.

                     

                    Very nicely said. Here's the famous essay on religious and scientific belief by the pragmatist William James, The Will to Believe, if anyone is up for some reading. (He's a pretty good writer, for a philosopher.)

                    beachrun


                      I think morality, ethics and religion/faith itself are firmly within the realm of science.  It's called anthropology.


                      just a simple cat

                         

                        Running is stupid

                          From your link above:

                           

                          "Well, it's no secret that the best thing about a secret is secretly telling someone your secret, thereby adding another secret to their secret collection of secrets, secretly."

                           

                          ---Now that is the way to lighten up a discussion. Smile

                           

                          And the quote:

                           

                          "Die at the right time!"

                           

                          ---I think in modern times, that quote can be changed to "Die in the right way".    I mean if you die in the bark-o-lounger, no one takes notice.   But if you suffer "death by sinkhole" in your bedroom, or perhaps on the 13th hole of a Golf Course, you're famous!  Big grin

                          The Plan (big parts)→  /// April '14:  Hampton, VA 24 Hour Run for Cancer (PR 80 Miles) ///  Nov '14:  New York Marathon  ///  Dec:  Seashore State Park 50K  ///  April 2015:  VA 24 Hour Run for Cancer (Goal: >80.1+Miles)  ∞

                            "True spirituality is not exclusive, it is inclusive."    Quote from one of "The Three Amigos"- An iman, a pastor and a rabi who get together to talk once in a while on KUOW Seattle- they were discussing Heavan and Hell.  Pod cast might be available- they are the kind of religious folks I like- trying to find common ground in different faiths.

                            mab411


                            Proboscis Colossus

                              "True spirituality is not exclusive, it is inclusive."    Quote from one of "The Three Amigos"- An iman, a pastor and a rabi who get together to talk once in a while on KUOW Seattle- they were discussing Heavan and Hell.  Pod cast might be available- they are the kind of religious folks I like- trying to find common ground in different faiths.

                               

                              That sounds fascinating! A search in iTunes reveals only a general KUOW feed of all content. Please PM me if a way to listen to this (other than live streaming) becomes available!

                              "God guides us on our journey, but careful with those feet." - David Lee Roth, of all people

                              JimR


                                Man wrote the bible.