seeds wrote: Isn’t the search for “Ultimate Truth” kind of at the core of philosophy itself?
If you Google the definition of philosophy, then I “expect” the core impetus of philosophy (in other words, the “spirit” that drives philosophical enquiry) to be actively engaged in the first answer that appears on the Google page, which is:Dubious wrote: No! What kind of "ultimate" do you expect philosophy to discover?
If the end goal in philosophical enquiry is not the attainment of some form of ultimate truth regarding “reality and existence,” then I can’t imagine what is.Google wrote: “...the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence...”
Absolutely yes! Why wouldn’t it be?Dubious wrote: Is this ultimate truth meant to be applicable to all that live in the universe?
And just to clarify that statement, it is applicable to all that live in the universe, but perhaps not of any interest to most of the all. For it is obvious that apes, dogs, ants, and paramecium, etc., have no use for such knowledge (if that's what you're getting at).
Are you talking about a universe that allegedly began as a tiny kernel of compressed matter that was somehow impregnated with every possible process and ingredient necessary to create all of reality as we understand it?Dubious wrote: Humans are so fond of their Ultimates and be forever in love with it like a Holy Grail which doesn't exist either. The only ultimate reality which lives up to its name is the universe itself.
Are you talking about a cosmic “seed” that seems to have appeared out of nowhere, that subsequently exploded into a vast and chaotic field of disparate quantum particles that somehow managed – by sheer chance – to configure themselves into a state of order that defies comprehension?
Are you talking about a universe that according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, that without the presence of consciousness would exist as spread-out waves of phase-entangled (superpositioned) patterns of energy and information that have no reality as we understand “reality” to be?
Is that the ultimate reality you speak of that “lives up to its name”?
What does that even mean?
seeds wrote: ...if philosophy is the “love of wisdom,” then what greater wisdom could there be than that which is inherent in the answers to the ultimate questions of “how and why” we are here?
Reread my previous comments above, and if you can logically explain how the random and mindless influences of gravity and thermodynamics could somehow cause a chaotic dispersion of quantum particles to magically blend together to form the order implicit in these two spectacularly complex objects...Dubious wrote: Aren't we aware of the "how" already...
...then let’s have it.
I assume that “...speaking of which...” was meant as an insult to me.Dubious wrote: Are these incipient "ultimate questions" meant to convey the idea that a "special" destiny must be inherent in our existence? If these "Ultimates" intimate that hope, then that is an absurd hope indeed engendered by a consciousness that hasn't been properly trained yet...speaking of which...!
I guess that knowing that you are arguing with a theist (actually a “panentheistic idealist” to be precise), causes you to “see red” (as you mentioned earlier) and you simply can’t resist the urge to insert the occasional slur. Is that about right?
By reason of the fact that you actively argue against the possibility of our continuing on in a transcendent context that exists above and outside of this material context is, in itself, an attempt (by you) to talk someone out of the hope they derive from believing in such things.Dubious wrote: Hope in life acts as an indispensable force driving us forward. We begin every endeavor in its glow by having confidence in the fulfillment of expectations which are the "life" intentions asserted by hope. Being such a striving force, we compel it to serve beyond its proper confines believing in assumptions which exceed our duration though here too it serves as an anodyne for those who are blessed to believe. I would never talk anyone out of it...
As does your implied belief that the universe is the product of serendipitous processes.Dubious wrote: ...but if presented in philosophy forums, it becomes a subject for scrutiny.
seeds wrote: Pretend that you have been completely successful in convincing billions of humans to give up the beliefs that bring them so much hope, solace, and comfort in life...
...and then tell us what it is you have to offer as a replacement for those beliefs that will, in turn, have a similar utility and effect?
Yet, while knowing that you have no replacement for it, you still make every effort (via philosophical argumentation) to destroy that hope.Dubious wrote: ...I can't imagine a replacement acceptable to those who cling to this hope.
What's up with that, Dubious?
And how, precisely, does that square with your earlier statement...
...?Dubious wrote: ...I would never talk anyone out of it...
_______