putting religion in it's proper place

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=482916 time=1607018437 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482911 time=1607017849 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=482887 time=1607013531 user_id=9431]

What do they "describe"?
[/quote]

Experience.
[/quote]
Is "experience" real, or is it merely linguistic?
[/quote]

All experiences are real but not all experiences are of something real in an external sense. That's where epistemology and evidence come in. Reality as a shared concept, that which is expressed through language, means the consensus understanding of presumably shared experiences, such as measurement.

[Immanuel Can]

Experience.

Is "experience" real, or is it merely linguistic?

All experiences are real but not all experiences are of something real in an external sense. That's where epistemology and evidence come in. Reality as a shared concept, that which is expressed through language, means the consensus understanding of presumably shared experiences, such as measurement.

Then follow your own circle of "logic." You have said that language "describes" something. That "something" is "experiences." But "experiences" are products of language, which are products of "shared experience". (Already, I can see you realize the wheels are coming off your cart, but you persevere.) But "reality" is only a "shared concept...expressed through language," as "consensus understanding of (presumably?) shared experiences such as measurement."

So language describes language, is essentially what you have concluded...since both "experiences" and "reality" are language-dependent. You've turned the world into a gigantic game of babble that both begins from and refers to nothing but itself.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote, quoting me:

...all moral codes are historical.

is what I claimed.

IC replied

All moral codes have been known in history. That is not to say they were all produced by human history. One could say, "All laws of science are historical," in exactly the same sense of "historical." It doesn't imply that they aren't also features of the objective world, as I'm sure you recognize.

I have faith that laws of science are eternal truths, but moral codes by contrast are caused by their historical contexts, which include some living people.

You, Immanuel, have faith that both laws of science and also the moral code to which you subscribe are eternal truths.

Neither of us can be proved to be right or wrong. All metaphysical stances are matters of faith. Some metaphysical stances are however more likely to cause people to be peaceful and inclusive in their attitudes and behaviour.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=482925 time=1607019832 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482922 time=1607019454 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=482916 time=1607018437 user_id=9431]

Is "experience" real, or is it merely linguistic?
[/quote]

All experiences are real but not all experiences are of something real in an external sense. That's where epistemology and evidence come in. Reality as a shared concept, that which is expressed through language, means the consensus understanding of presumably shared experiences, such as measurement.
[/quote]
Then follow your own circle of "logic." You have said that language "describes" something. That "something" is "experiences." But "experiences" are products of language, which are products of "shared experience". (Already, I can see you realize the wheels are coming off your cart, but you persevere.) But "reality" is only a "shared concept...expressed through language," as "consensus understanding of (presumably?) shared experiences such as measurement."

So [u]language describes language[/u], is essentially what you have concluded...since both "experiences" and "reality" are language-dependent. You've turned the world into a gigantic game of babble that both begins from and refers to nothing but itself.
[/quote]

Experiences are sometimes products of language, not inherently. That's crossing willy-nilly between two very different levels of understanding. Experiences are not language dependent but sharing those experiences or a shared understanding of those things can be. But nevermind trying to find circularity, let's grant that it's there. The universe is an infinitely recursive meta-mobius, and the entire project of knowledge is to simplify things sufficiently Enough, to the end of actionable certainty. Yes, language and experience and communication are largely intertwined. That doesn't imply they're useless, only that they're often insufficient, which is where philosophy comes in. We can find answers To The Extent we agree on the terms.

[SpheresOfBalance]

More harm has been done in the name of religion than any other cause but profit. And to say that most of it was not good or legitimate religion is another mark against it for being so easily corruptible.

Easy. It's only place is in the minds of the most weak & fearful.

[attofishpi]

More harm has been done in the name of religion than any other cause but profit. And to say that most of it was not good or legitimate religion is another mark against it for being so easily corruptible.

Easy. It's only place is in the minds of the most weak & fearful.

I tend to forget that U R 1 of those 'hard of thinking' types, so i'll try and take it easy on U.

Let's catch up, within 4D spacetime, and C which 1 of us is too weak to make a week or whether you could last an actual foughtnight.



u simple c*nt.