Bertrand russell on sceptisism (the philosophy)

by bohm 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  slimboyfat

  I don't know what we are arguing about, do you know? Plus the writing is very small.

  I should have quoted Rorty more fully:

  "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'. But the utility of those language games is nothing to do with the question of whether Reality as It Is In Itself, apart from the way in which it is handy for human being to describe it, has mountains in it."

  Wittgenstein also said:

  "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him."

  Do you think lions have use for "mountain"?
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Do you think lions have use for "mountain"?

  No, but we do. And isn't that what is important?

  Slimboy, you said on another thread that your philosophy, or rather way of looking at things, proved useful. I've yet to see its usefulness.
• 

  bohm

  Sbf: I don't know what we are arguing about, do you know? Plus the writing is very small.

  on the last page you wrote: It's [the question if mountains exist] the wrong question for a number of reasons

  You then gave a number of arguments which i responded to at some length. If the letters are to small i will copy my response below, however I must admit i get the impression you are not interested in persuing an argument for a position you know you cant support, and you are to proud or stubborn to admit you were wrong, and so the letters are to small and your browser cannot zoom... Knowsnothing: bingo!
• 

  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 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".
• 

  slimboyfat

  So where do we disagree?

  It's the wrong question because it does not matter if it exists. What matters is that it is useful for certain purposes. Is that what you mean?

  I think that perspectivism is the only honest response to the complexity and uncertainty the world presents. This does not mean that all perspectives are equally valid however. What it means is that there are different ways of looking at things, and that no single perspective should be prioritised to the exclusion of others. But there are certainly reasons that can be promoted for viewing one perspective more favourably than another, and that is what we do all the time. What we cannot do is state that one perspective represents reality and others do not. Language is simply not capable of giving up certain correspondence to reality.
• 

  bohm

  Okay, to make it clear, i think: "does mountains exist" IS NOT a wrong question to ask. In fact, i think if that type of question is not sensible, i cant think of very many other questions about the world that are.

  were we also disagree:

  It's the wrong question because it does not matter if it exists. What matters is that it is useful for certain purposes.

  Why suppose thats the case? Why does use matter over existence?

  Try to substitute something else: its wrong to ask if body thetans exist, what matters is if they are useful for certain purposes. Surely elron would agree!

  How about this: its wrong to ask if the zionist conspiracy exist, what matters is that its useful for certain purposes. Surely the cynic antisemite agree!

  I realize this is also appealing to the consequence, but so do you: You talk about a tyrany of facts, or how your view set us free - knowsnothing raised this point as well. I think history indicate thats simply not the case.
• 

  Knowsnothing

  I think that perspectivism is the only honest response to the complexity and uncertainty the world presents

  I disagree. Even within our limits we can craft and forge our future; at least we can try. That's not to say other perspectives aren't worth looking at, it's to say that in our day-to-day lives, we look for our own wellbeing, and we do it as best as we individually see fit. Show me a contrary example worth considering.

  Your perspectivism seems crippling to the point where there can be nothing set in concrete, thus nothing is set in motion. Ideas are great, implementations are better, IMO.