Bertrand russell on sceptisism (the philosophy) (page 2)

slimboyfat

A foundationalist in other words.

David Hume was the greatest philosopher ever, and a sceptic.

bohm

David Hume was the greatest philosopher ever, and a sceptic.

if you have been aiming for hume all of this time, well, that has been hard to tell.

"It is pointless to ask whether there really are mountains or whether it is merely convenient for us to talk about mountains, for given that it pays to talk about mountains, as it certainly does, one of the obvious truths about mountains is that they were here before we talked about them. If you do not believe that, you probably don't know how to play the language games that employ the word 'mountain'."

bohm

"It is pointless to ask whether there really are mountains or whether it is merely convenient for us to talk about mountains, for given that it pays to talk about mountains, as it certainly does, one of the obvious truths about mountains is that they were here before we talked about them."

And yet you keep asking pointless questions such as "should we really call it jwfacts or jwinterpretations" etc. etc.

Mind, my disagreement is not with rorty, but with the "one size fits it all wisdom" of bringing up the same tired point over and over again.

To the extend you have tried to expressed Rorty on this forum in your own words (which is very little and I think for a good reason) it is very hard to see how you are consistent with him. For instance the assertion: " one of the obvious truths about mountains is that they were here before we talked about them" does seem an awfull lot a statement of fact and seem to contradict your insistence there are no facts to the point of absurdity (cf. that the military may be a cake).

I am sure you will disagree, but from my vantage point you seem to have read a bit of Rorty, perhaps seen a video or two, and only understanding very little you are unclear on what you are "allowed" to say. Needless to say, this make the Bertrand Russell quote above all the more apt.

slimboyfat

Rorty's point is that asking whether mountains exist is the wrong question. At a fundamental level it doesn't even make sense because "mountain" is a word not an ontological essence. To ask whether a word is identical with a real discrete thing in the world is to mix up categories. If we use words as tools rather than imagining them to be uncomplicated windows into reality then we can avoid dogmatism and allow different perspectives to be heard.

I don't think the jwfacts question was pointless. The point was to explore whether viewing the attributes of JWs as a list of solid facts or as a series of interpretations from a certain perspective is more fruitful.

Since JWs themselves are realists in outlook, then to critique them on the basis that they have the facts wrong is not as radical a demolition as it may seem. To question the very notion that there is one correct way of looking at a subject is a more fundamental challenge to the JW mindset.

If you are interested on a more radical take on the history of philosophy than Russell has to offer you might like to read Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Rather than viewing philosophy as a dispassionate search for truth it situates the enterprise within western concerns and preoccupations with the idea of platonic dualisms such as reality and appearance and the modern conflict between science and religion.

bohm

Rorty's point is that asking whether mountains exist is the wrong question.

It is? why? who is saying it is the wrong question? By which standard?

The standard cannot be what has brought about the greatest changes to human living, or what humans are most prone to ask about. On the contrary, it seem the questions that are of most interest to human, both as individuals and as a society, can be phrased very similarly to does X exist. For instance, does germs exist. Is there a lion behind the bush. Does atoms exist. Does a semiconducting material with these properties exist. Did the nazi concentration camps exist. Does god exist. etc. etc.

At a fundamental level it doesn't even make sense because "mountain" is a word not an ontological essence. To ask whether a word is identical with a real discrete thing in the world is to mix up categories.

Well duh. That distinction has to do with philosophical language ("Alice" is not Alice) and goes back to the greeks. But it should obviously not stand in the way from the observation a question like: "Does HIV virus exist" must be counted amongst the most basic and important tools an intelligent creature has available when thinking about or trying to communicate to other intelligent creatures about the world.

If we use words as tools rather than imagining them to be uncomplicated windows into reality then we can avoid dogmatism and allow different perspectives to be heard.

not only is it very hard to see exactly what this statement is supposed to mean, but if you by other perspectices mean other perspectives held by other people on this forum (and not only your own perspective on epistomology), its a basic observation they rest in every day language and revolve around whether things exist or not, are true or not and so on. Making the conversation about what you think is important in epistomology is *not* allowing them to be heard, its about allowing you to be heard.

The point was to explore whether viewing the attributes of JWs as a list of solid facts or as a series of interpretations from a certain perspective is more fruitful.

yet nothing was explored and nothing of substance was advanced.

Since JWs themselves are realists in outlook, then to critique them on the basis that they have the facts wrong is not as radical a demolition as it may seem.

I think most other people are actually interested in whether they are correct or not, it certainly seems many here have preoccupied themselves quite intensely over that question, and has found it important enough to take personal risks over it.

If you are interested on a more radical take on the history of philosophy than Russell has to offer you might like to read Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Rather than viewing philosophy as a dispassionate search for truth it situates the enterprise within western concerns and preoccupations with the idea of platonic dualisms such as reality and appearance and the modern conflict between science and religion.

I am sure it is an interesting book.

slimboyfat

It's the wrong question for a number of reasons. First of all it has no practical implications. Additionally words are simply sounds or signs that make sense in context by convention. They have no real connection to the world in itself. A mountain does not know it is a mountain and if there were no humans to call it such no one else would either. Who is to say we could not conceive of geological formations differently so that there was no need for the word mountain? But for its different parts and for it in combination with valleys, the sky and the earth's core? A mountain as such does not exist apart from as a concept used to tame the vast and unfathomable reality. So by all means let's talk about mountains (or HIV or concerntration camps) but let us remember the limitations of language and never suppose we can arrive at the final word.

Comatose

I've been in the mountains. They DO exist just in case anyone wanted proof. I can swear to it.

I know someone with AIDS and it is real too.

Please read between the lines and try to understand what I mean - good day and I will chat with you later.

slimboyfat

Now there's a riddle, what ever can you mean?

bohm

sbf: It's [the question if mountains exist] the wrong question for a number of reasons

Firstly, I duly notice that since we are now talking about something you believe to be the case, you have switched back to universals: If mountains exist or not IS the wrong question; all other facts on the other hand are not really facts.

Secondly, i noticed you have not answered in what sence the question is "wrong". Is it morally wrong? is there something illogical about it? is it because inquiery if things exist or not (atoms, lions, mountains or causes for disease) is an enterprice that in your oppinion do not lead to results? Oh well, lets hear the reasons:

1) First of all it has no practical implications

this is not an argument, but simply stating something you might believe to be true but seem trivially false on experience: If for instance you are building a road, if there are mountains or not is of the utmost importance. if gods exist or not are a matter of life and death to billions of people and if you go to the doctor for a cancer screening I think you will certainly be interested in knowing if there is or is not antibodies in your blood.

2) Additionally words are simply sounds or signs that make sense in context by convention.

This is at best confused. Firstly the statement, if true, is not actually connected to the actual question "is the question: "does mountains exist or not" wrong". Secondly, and allmost implicitly despite the deflationary language, words are not "just" signs and sounds; its a classic case of a deepity.

3) A mountain does not know it is a mountain and if there were no humans to call it such no one else would either.

Okay let me get this straigt: It wrong for us to ask if mountains exist or not because mountains do not know they are mountains, and if there were no humans, nobody would either. QED. I love this display come only a few posts after you thought on Russel: "the blandest most derivative "philosopher" of the twentieth century".

4) Who is to say we could not conceive of geological formations differently so that there was no need for the word mountain?

If things were different, we might ask different things. It still does not explain whats wrong asking a certain question in the real world where things are as they are; again poor logic.

5) A mountain as such does not exist apart from as a concept used to tame the vast and unfathomable reality

Actually they do. I will quote Rorty, the same quote I believe you used earlier:

R.Rorty: one of the obvious truths about mountains is that they were here before we 5 talked about them

So mountains exist, at least according to Rorty, but if someone ask me if mountains exist, that question is "wrong". Again you are very far from making it clear why I to should suppose that question was "wrong".

Bertrand russell on sceptisism (the philosophy)

Share this