Ultimate Questions by Bryan Magee

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Ultimate Questions by Bryan Magee

Post by Philosophy Now »

Grant Sterling asks some immediate questions about Ultimate Questions.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/123/Ultimate_Questions_by_Bryan_Magee
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Ultimate Questions by Bryan Magee

Post by jayjacobus »

Well, religion is information supporting a particular biased point of view. Does it have merit as a truth or knowledge? Logically much, but perhaps not all, does not have such merit. Yet, the fundamental truth is possible. To be definite we need to know how "it" works,
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Ultimate Questions by Bryan Magee

Post by -1- »

This article was a waste of reading. Luckily it was not long. A brief synopsis he could have written discussing the book he read: "We don't know squat all, so we could believe, but belief has no legs to stand on either, when it comes to knowledge."

Well, duh.

Even worse, it appeals to the god gap. There are things we don't know so why not accept them as supernatural, suggests the author. Yikes. This went out of fashion three hundred years ago, in the age of Enlightenment. Time to bring back some old fashioned values, eh? Like, well, what else, how'bout the Autodafe? The Spanish Inquisition. (You did not expect that, did you.) Witch burning. Seesoothsaying. Selling Jesus' right hand in five billion copies.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Ultimate Questions by Bryan Magee

Post by Dubious »

Magee is far better in expounding the philosophy of others than attempting it himself. His Tristan Chord, among others is an example of that. He shows himself more adept and interesting in the context of other artists and thinkers.

In any event, philosophy amounts to nothing more than a long series of variations on themes we create. The unknown, whether temporary or permanent, is dead to us just as we are doomed to be unknown to ourselves when we die. For many, that's a relief. Any discussion of such anonymity can only resolve itself into cliche. Time and understanding exists in neither realm if consciousness is thoroughly unaware of what could lie further in the field of knowns or any of its past and future.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Ultimate Questions by Bryan Magee

Post by A_Seagull »

Philosophy Now wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:56 pm Grant Sterling asks some immediate questions about Ultimate Questions.

Magee repeatedly treats religious beliefs as if they’re all transparently nothing more than wish-fulfillment, so that there is no need to respond to them with arguments. He writes, “Religious discourse has this general characteristic. It is a form of unjustified evasion, a failure to face up to the reality of ignorance as our natural and inevitable starting point.” (p.31). This conclusion might be justified if it were supported with arguments; but here it is Magee who offers none.
Of course people can believe whatever they want to believe. And clever people are fully capable of concocting cogent arguments to back up their beliefs. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to take them seriously.

It is my considered opinion that no serious philosopher can also be religious. For the invocation of god does not answer any of life's mysteries; it merely puts a damper on further investigation and exploration as religionists believe that the mysteries are 'solved'.

Religion has been concocted without rational justification and so can be summarily dismissed without rational justification.

The only remaining task for the philosopher is to explain the phenomenon of religion, which Magee attempts with his statement about 'wish-fulfilment.
dorothea
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: Ultimate Questions by Bryan Magee

Post by dorothea »

Magee's words are an argument are they not. He is saying we are ignorant of god(s), by definition, so rational argument on no evidence is futile. The only 'evidence' ever presented is in the form of assertions by other people, not direct evidence. But there is an exception - put by Aquinas, Kierkegaard and others - and that is faith, but it only convinces, usually, the one with faith. Speaking as one who does not believe any religion, not even the nature-is-God type of Spinoza, I would not agree with you that no rational person (if that's what philosophers are, not always obvious on these forums) can have a theological belief. All of us - one hopes - fall (as we say) in love with some person or thing, but could not give reasons for it. (Who ever loved that loved not at first sight - Shakespeare). We do not, when in love, make a check list of evidence for and against loving a person. If we find ourselves doing that, we are not in love but after something else - his/her money for example.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Ultimate Questions by Bryan Magee

Post by A_Seagull »

dorothea wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:42 pm , I would not agree with you that no rational person (if that's what philosophers are, not always obvious on these forums) can have a theological belief.
If a religious person was also a philosopher they would be seeking answers to questions like: Where does God exist? How does God interact with people? How does God make his presence manifest? How is it possible for a God to be omnipotent? etc etc.

But they don't even ask these questions. Hence I conclude that there no religious people who are also true philosophers.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Ultimate Questions by Bryan Magee

Post by jayjacobus »

A_Seagull wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:52 pm
dorothea wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:42 pm , I would not agree with you that no rational person (if that's what philosophers are, not always obvious on these forums) can have a theological belief.
If a religious person was also a philosopher they would be seeking answers to questions like: Where does God exist? How does God interact with people? How does God make his presence manifest? How is it possible for a God to be omnipotent? etc etc.

But they don't even ask these questions. Hence I conclude that there no religious people who are also true philosophers.
Logically you may be right but many philosophers believed in God three hundred years ago. The accepted "truth" is hard to overcome. And, if you look hard at some of the current theories about the mind, computers and reality, you will note some unlikely concepts. Yet once they take hold, they are hard to dismiss.
dorothea
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: Ultimate Questions by Bryan Magee

Post by dorothea »

Those where? how? questions have been asked surely? - but along with the does? question have proved to have no bullet proof answers. The difficulty about what some philosophers in the past believed is tricky - as evasion (of execution) was necessary. Hobbes, despite his use of God and extensive biblical references was accused of atheism and at one point the bishops wanted him burned. He also destroyed some of his own papers after the debate on free will with the bishop of Derry. Spinoza's idea of God seems to me to be simply using the word God as a synonym for Nature - and he too was persecuted.
Post Reply