"Any prevailing interpretation is a function of power and not of truth"-Nietzsche...
Just to ask thouartthat how mush truth can one incorporate within one's organism without self destructing? and do you think you are of the same "type" of organism that will hold an idea through faith and live on because of that faith?...or are you the one that shall perish sooner because of that faith? and if you are that one who shall perish sooner or can feel the friction of other ideas what is to stop medioc
Whose notion of enaction are you using here? It's not really what current academic discourse would see as enaction, because certainly it wouldn't claim that objects per se have to be changed by acting on them, rather it says that to know some objects we have to act and the action is required to knowing, going back to Heidegger's distinction of zur Handen (can be acted on, ready-at-hand) and vorhanden (existing).
ditto the new renaissance, I would call it the 'great white rabbit' problem.. (after Robert Anton Wilson's Challenge). Is 'faith' necessary to enactment? Perhaps, the faith discussed is really just faith in enactmentism.. OK, so now, someone says the great white rabbit whispers the secrets of the universe in my ear, and I trust the Great White Rabbit because I have faith in him/her (this rabbit of all, the ur concept of all concepts of all rabbits is gender neutral let's say)...
There is no fundamental knowledge or reality outside of experience. There is only the infinite regress of gaining knowledge in the form of a strange loop between subject and object. Therefore, no certainty as such. Faith is not a product of certainty or knowledge but one of trust/acceptance. ......Thats been on my mind at it clicks with the idea in this video.
I object to this claim to have access to the directly real and don't understand why you don't see what a malfunctioning idea any directionalism (new word) is.
@pyrrho314 I object to faith based faith too, sound like a self-reinforcing delusion. But I'm genuinely interested in what Matt has to say about faith, and I'm open to learning something. I can see how faith can be helpful, I can also see how it is used to create evil armies of blind followers, and doomsday machines.
You said that faith "... grants access to a truth that would not otherwise be available..." Is this conclusion something you accept on faith, or have there been specific revelations or affirmations?
"reality, in Whitehead's philosophy, is literally made of perspectives. The real can only be interpreted"
yes, very much resonates...
i would just say that, for me, a "true world" does exist in a sense; a kind of 'absolute' sense, but that it simply cannot (ever) be tangible*, even in the most abstract conceptual way. It is outwith knowing & not-knowing
*(but even simply saying it is 'intangible' is misleading)
"Faith opens a door to a truth that was not available before." What then provides for falsification of said statement posited as 'truth'? What defines the dividing line between reality and the projection of the imagination?
@TheNewRenaissance The dividing line is, first, intersubjective agreement, and second, that between life and death. When I say "intersubjective," I don't just mean truth is an agreement between human subjects. Part of Whitehead's scheme is to make subjectivity a fundamental property of all objects. All matter has an experiential component. Carbon enters into agreements with oxygen, phosphorus, etc based on stable semiotic interpretations to continue the metabolic activity that keeps me alive.
@TheNewRenaissance I'm defining truth in a pragmatic and philosophical, not a scientific/theoretical sense, where falsification is relevant. Truth is no longer a matter of whether or not you can prove it wrong, but of how well the interpretation proposed as true produces an interesting, helpful, or creative contrast with matters of fact. Don't as "is a statement true?", but "what does it do?"
@0ThouArtThat0 So this definition of truth anything that is of utility to a human society is truth? Okay, then what about "truths" like the existence of witches and the necessity of hunting them down and burning them alive? Such and worse where "truths" in past societies, and sadly in many contemporary ones.
@TheNewRenaissance No, truth is that which works for ANY society, whether human, animal, cellular, atomic, or electronic. Every being, at every level, from humans to atoms, forms propositions in regard to its social environment. To the extent that these propositions are "useful," their social environments continue to exist. If a being's propositions are too outlandish or radically novel, they may destroy the society to which they belong. Truth is a life or death matter.
Whitehead's approach is not relativism, he is a cosmologist who thinks there is a matter of fact about the way the world is independent of human subjectivity. But there are no matters of fact independent of every form of subjectivity. Outside of experience (and every entity is experiential), there is nothing, only abstraction. Truth is, in a sense, a social construct. But the society in question is cosmic, not just human.
@TheNewRenaissance (Not attempting to troll, I think these are important ideas. But important ideas need to be tested so playing "Devil's Advocate" is often necessary)
@TheNewRenaissance RE: "Devil's Advocate" The devil is in the details, ignore them and that's where you are. Matt's either ignoring the details or he's not clearly expressing himself.
@0ThouArtThat0 "Truth is no longer a matter of whether or not you can prove it wrong, but of how well the interpretation proposed as true produces an interesting, helpful" The US government found the truth about WMD's in Iraq interesting and helpful... for a while.
@astrotometry and isn't the fact that they and many of us found their statements interesting and provacative precisely the point here? we live in a world where the truth is not what corresponds to reality, but what most effectively motivates a society to construct reality as such. we can't sit back and rail against liars, we have to step forward with our own, more worthwhile propositions.
@0ThouArtThat0 "we can't sit back and rail against liars, we have to step forward with our own, more worthwhile propositions" Sometimes the proposition is as simple as "stop your lying, or else..."
@0ThouArtThat0 If truth is no longer a matter of whether or not one can serve to prove "it" wrong, does it not then, by definition, cease to be truth since it has then become wholly subjective to experiential interpretation? Pick someone out of the crowd and ask them if they would prefer an objective truth or one which was subject to the changing of the tides, based on whatever circumstances, and they are going to undoubtedly choose the former over the latter, as "truth" denotes a...
...fundamentally reconciled and predetermined "answer" or established norm, certainly cognitively speaking at the very least. I understand why it is important to avail yourself of the study of truth as it relates to philosophical pragmatism, whether it is James or someone like Jung. Nevertheless, to do so will invariably lead to detraction from what human beings perceive to be the truth, so I would contend that the scientific and theoretical applications are far more germane to the issue of...
...how truth relates to the function of self. Christ, we live in a country in which we have the "truth" shoved down our gullets on a daily basis. Sadly, quite often we find that the truth that we come to rely upon is not only not the truth, but stands as a complete fabrication of the truth, thereby nullifying its capacity to hold meaning tangibly or philosophically; certainly at that point, things like pragmatism simply cannot be addressed unless you wish to drive yourself mad. If truth is...
...measured not upon whether it can be proven wrong or substantiated to a standard of sorts, but is instead a function of how well the interpretation proposed as true produces an interesting, helpful, or creative contrast with matters of fact, is it not then simply a human choice to determine what will be true and what will not be true on the whim of the individual? If truth is as qualitatively important as we expect it to be quantitatively “relevant,” I fear that it ceases to be truth and is...
...sidestepping into interpretive opinion. Then what shall we do with our inquisitive selves? Digressing slightly and referencing the identity theory of truth, the most general breakdown we can come up with is that when a proposition is true, there must be a fact with which/whom it is identical, and the truth of the former only consists in its identity with the latter. Now, that stated and not boggling it down with a correspondence theorem, which I say is not needed, but whatever, the...
...theorem is very "human," makes good sense, and does not serve to confuse people on a mission to get to "the truth." Now it makes no bloody sense for anyone of us to state that the "truth bearers" and "truth makers" are either alike or even related. But it certainly makes a good metaphysical argument when philosophers contend that they are, ergo the clash of judgments and reality, and to my point (which I do have incidentally), if truth is "altered" to suit the needs of the few, we all suffer.
It is no longer an objective truth but more of...well, faith, right? As I put forth in the last video's comment section, faith and truth are about as friendly to one another as oil and water, or Jamesian pragmatism (truth installed or not installed) and faith. When I went to Vespers this evening, I had and remain to have faith that God was and will be with me and the rest of the community. Now if invited some YouTube atheists to Vespers, they will see neither faith nor truth; neither...
...quantity or quality. They shall all say it is bullshit and they will excuse themselves. A few of the older and more seasoned brothers would say that they have failed to see the truth that is engendered from faith in Christ. If I propose that the truth simply escaped them because they have no faith, I have already fundamentally altered truth qualitatively, and it might be my truth, but it was my faith that gave rise to it. I could be terribly wrong and the atheists might be right. I have...
..."faith" that their hearts and minds will be opened to the possibility of shifting gears, but it does not make my claims any more truthful in their eyes. Truth, whether the interpretation proposed as true produces an interesting, helpful, or creative contrast with matters of fact, or fails to do so, will ultimately lead to a paradox. You have not reinforced truth with that assertion; you have instilled doubt, which shall ultimately eclipse truth, especially in the minds of yearning humans.
In seeking the statement's truth, it does what it should do: lead to a conclusive, objective answer. Do feelings that arise from that truth fundamentally alter truth in and of itself? You said that truth is that which "works" for anyone/thing. I absolutely agree that truth is a matter of life and death, every day in all that we do and say. I do not know about you my friend, but I have come across some real useless and shitty truths, but they have not killed me, yet. Propositions are not truths.
Faith is not belief. But trust in a belief. To trust a belief one must find truth in it. To know if the belief is true we must test its accuracy. Thanks.
"Any prevailing interpretation is a function of power and not of truth"-Nietzsche...
Just to ask thouartthat how mush truth can one incorporate within one's organism without self destructing? and do you think you are of the same "type" of organism that will hold an idea through faith and live on because of that faith?...or are you the one that shall perish sooner because of that faith? and if you are that one who shall perish sooner or can feel the friction of other ideas what is to stop medioc
F1ghtclub2k11 8 months ago
Whose notion of enaction are you using here? It's not really what current academic discourse would see as enaction, because certainly it wouldn't claim that objects per se have to be changed by acting on them, rather it says that to know some objects we have to act and the action is required to knowing, going back to Heidegger's distinction of zur Handen (can be acted on, ready-at-hand) and vorhanden (existing).
socrates856 8 months ago
ditto the new renaissance, I would call it the 'great white rabbit' problem.. (after Robert Anton Wilson's Challenge). Is 'faith' necessary to enactment? Perhaps, the faith discussed is really just faith in enactmentism.. OK, so now, someone says the great white rabbit whispers the secrets of the universe in my ear, and I trust the Great White Rabbit because I have faith in him/her (this rabbit of all, the ur concept of all concepts of all rabbits is gender neutral let's say)...
kingofaikido 8 months ago
There is no fundamental knowledge or reality outside of experience. There is only the infinite regress of gaining knowledge in the form of a strange loop between subject and object. Therefore, no certainty as such. Faith is not a product of certainty or knowledge but one of trust/acceptance. ......Thats been on my mind at it clicks with the idea in this video.
R2D2ONE22 8 months ago
A lot of false flagging going on here Matt. Wonder who's doing it. :-/
patternsinchaos 8 months ago
there is no truth and there is no false both
are concepts born of a concept that separtes the
imagination from the physical and brings this false
duality as one more real than the other.but if a thought is something that occurs in consiousness and the physical is
something that occurs in consciousness than they are the same
RonnieGilli87 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the path of discovering knowledge (epistemology) is a strange loop
R2D2ONE22 8 months ago
Comment removed
R2D2ONE22 8 months ago
Does it have to be faith, or can one dream possibilities of eventual realities. Perhaps perceiving is dreaming and knowing is believing.
Monolith1618 8 months ago
reality is lived. faith is a gift or bonus. when the knower looks the known knows.
glrcmptn 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glrcmptn "when the knower looks the known knows." Depends on the knower.
astrotometry 8 months ago
I object to this claim to have access to the directly real and don't understand why you don't see what a malfunctioning idea any directionalism (new word) is.
pyrrho314 8 months ago
Comment removed
astrotometry 8 months ago
@pyrrho314 I object to faith based faith too, sound like a self-reinforcing delusion. But I'm genuinely interested in what Matt has to say about faith, and I'm open to learning something. I can see how faith can be helpful, I can also see how it is used to create evil armies of blind followers, and doomsday machines.
astrotometry 8 months ago
You said that faith "... grants access to a truth that would not otherwise be available..." Is this conclusion something you accept on faith, or have there been specific revelations or affirmations?
patternsinchaos 8 months ago
Hey man, do you believe in god and if so what is it or he or she?
charronfamilyconnect 8 months ago
"reality, in Whitehead's philosophy, is literally made of perspectives. The real can only be interpreted"
yes, very much resonates...
i would just say that, for me, a "true world" does exist in a sense; a kind of 'absolute' sense, but that it simply cannot (ever) be tangible*, even in the most abstract conceptual way. It is outwith knowing & not-knowing
*(but even simply saying it is 'intangible' is misleading)
TWITfromURANUS 8 months ago
"Faith opens a door to a truth that was not available before." What then provides for falsification of said statement posited as 'truth'? What defines the dividing line between reality and the projection of the imagination?
TheNewRenaissance 8 months ago
@TheNewRenaissance The dividing line is, first, intersubjective agreement, and second, that between life and death. When I say "intersubjective," I don't just mean truth is an agreement between human subjects. Part of Whitehead's scheme is to make subjectivity a fundamental property of all objects. All matter has an experiential component. Carbon enters into agreements with oxygen, phosphorus, etc based on stable semiotic interpretations to continue the metabolic activity that keeps me alive.
0ThouArtThat0 8 months ago
@TheNewRenaissance I'm defining truth in a pragmatic and philosophical, not a scientific/theoretical sense, where falsification is relevant. Truth is no longer a matter of whether or not you can prove it wrong, but of how well the interpretation proposed as true produces an interesting, helpful, or creative contrast with matters of fact. Don't as "is a statement true?", but "what does it do?"
0ThouArtThat0 8 months ago
@0ThouArtThat0 So this definition of truth anything that is of utility to a human society is truth? Okay, then what about "truths" like the existence of witches and the necessity of hunting them down and burning them alive? Such and worse where "truths" in past societies, and sadly in many contemporary ones.
TheNewRenaissance 8 months ago
@TheNewRenaissance No, truth is that which works for ANY society, whether human, animal, cellular, atomic, or electronic. Every being, at every level, from humans to atoms, forms propositions in regard to its social environment. To the extent that these propositions are "useful," their social environments continue to exist. If a being's propositions are too outlandish or radically novel, they may destroy the society to which they belong. Truth is a life or death matter.
0ThouArtThat0 8 months ago
Whitehead's approach is not relativism, he is a cosmologist who thinks there is a matter of fact about the way the world is independent of human subjectivity. But there are no matters of fact independent of every form of subjectivity. Outside of experience (and every entity is experiential), there is nothing, only abstraction. Truth is, in a sense, a social construct. But the society in question is cosmic, not just human.
0ThouArtThat0 8 months ago
@TheNewRenaissance (Not attempting to troll, I think these are important ideas. But important ideas need to be tested so playing "Devil's Advocate" is often necessary)
TheNewRenaissance 8 months ago
@TheNewRenaissance RE: "Devil's Advocate" The devil is in the details, ignore them and that's where you are. Matt's either ignoring the details or he's not clearly expressing himself.
astrotometry 8 months ago
@0ThouArtThat0 "Truth is no longer a matter of whether or not you can prove it wrong, but of how well the interpretation proposed as true produces an interesting, helpful" The US government found the truth about WMD's in Iraq interesting and helpful... for a while.
astrotometry 8 months ago
@astrotometry and isn't the fact that they and many of us found their statements interesting and provacative precisely the point here? we live in a world where the truth is not what corresponds to reality, but what most effectively motivates a society to construct reality as such. we can't sit back and rail against liars, we have to step forward with our own, more worthwhile propositions.
0ThouArtThat0 8 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@0ThouArtThat0 "we can't sit back and rail against liars, we have to step forward with our own, more worthwhile propositions" Sometimes the proposition is as simple as "stop your lying, or else..."
astrotometry 8 months ago
@0ThouArtThat0 If truth is no longer a matter of whether or not one can serve to prove "it" wrong, does it not then, by definition, cease to be truth since it has then become wholly subjective to experiential interpretation? Pick someone out of the crowd and ask them if they would prefer an objective truth or one which was subject to the changing of the tides, based on whatever circumstances, and they are going to undoubtedly choose the former over the latter, as "truth" denotes a...
MageSutek 8 months ago
...fundamentally reconciled and predetermined "answer" or established norm, certainly cognitively speaking at the very least. I understand why it is important to avail yourself of the study of truth as it relates to philosophical pragmatism, whether it is James or someone like Jung. Nevertheless, to do so will invariably lead to detraction from what human beings perceive to be the truth, so I would contend that the scientific and theoretical applications are far more germane to the issue of...
MageSutek 8 months ago
...how truth relates to the function of self. Christ, we live in a country in which we have the "truth" shoved down our gullets on a daily basis. Sadly, quite often we find that the truth that we come to rely upon is not only not the truth, but stands as a complete fabrication of the truth, thereby nullifying its capacity to hold meaning tangibly or philosophically; certainly at that point, things like pragmatism simply cannot be addressed unless you wish to drive yourself mad. If truth is...
MageSutek 8 months ago
...measured not upon whether it can be proven wrong or substantiated to a standard of sorts, but is instead a function of how well the interpretation proposed as true produces an interesting, helpful, or creative contrast with matters of fact, is it not then simply a human choice to determine what will be true and what will not be true on the whim of the individual? If truth is as qualitatively important as we expect it to be quantitatively “relevant,” I fear that it ceases to be truth and is...
MageSutek 8 months ago
...sidestepping into interpretive opinion. Then what shall we do with our inquisitive selves? Digressing slightly and referencing the identity theory of truth, the most general breakdown we can come up with is that when a proposition is true, there must be a fact with which/whom it is identical, and the truth of the former only consists in its identity with the latter. Now, that stated and not boggling it down with a correspondence theorem, which I say is not needed, but whatever, the...
MageSutek 8 months ago
...theorem is very "human," makes good sense, and does not serve to confuse people on a mission to get to "the truth." Now it makes no bloody sense for anyone of us to state that the "truth bearers" and "truth makers" are either alike or even related. But it certainly makes a good metaphysical argument when philosophers contend that they are, ergo the clash of judgments and reality, and to my point (which I do have incidentally), if truth is "altered" to suit the needs of the few, we all suffer.
MageSutek 8 months ago
It is no longer an objective truth but more of...well, faith, right? As I put forth in the last video's comment section, faith and truth are about as friendly to one another as oil and water, or Jamesian pragmatism (truth installed or not installed) and faith. When I went to Vespers this evening, I had and remain to have faith that God was and will be with me and the rest of the community. Now if invited some YouTube atheists to Vespers, they will see neither faith nor truth; neither...
MageSutek 8 months ago
...quantity or quality. They shall all say it is bullshit and they will excuse themselves. A few of the older and more seasoned brothers would say that they have failed to see the truth that is engendered from faith in Christ. If I propose that the truth simply escaped them because they have no faith, I have already fundamentally altered truth qualitatively, and it might be my truth, but it was my faith that gave rise to it. I could be terribly wrong and the atheists might be right. I have...
MageSutek 8 months ago
..."faith" that their hearts and minds will be opened to the possibility of shifting gears, but it does not make my claims any more truthful in their eyes. Truth, whether the interpretation proposed as true produces an interesting, helpful, or creative contrast with matters of fact, or fails to do so, will ultimately lead to a paradox. You have not reinforced truth with that assertion; you have instilled doubt, which shall ultimately eclipse truth, especially in the minds of yearning humans.
MageSutek 8 months ago
In seeking the statement's truth, it does what it should do: lead to a conclusive, objective answer. Do feelings that arise from that truth fundamentally alter truth in and of itself? You said that truth is that which "works" for anyone/thing. I absolutely agree that truth is a matter of life and death, every day in all that we do and say. I do not know about you my friend, but I have come across some real useless and shitty truths, but they have not killed me, yet. Propositions are not truths.
MageSutek 8 months ago
Faith is not belief. But trust in a belief. To trust a belief one must find truth in it. To know if the belief is true we must test its accuracy. Thanks.
hellavadeal 8 months ago