vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Well then, I disagree with those particular Stoics who support that position. Do you reject it too, or accept it?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mindfulness as an Expression of Pantheism
- Thread starter Ella S.
- Start date
Well then, I disagree with those particular Stoics who support that position. Do you reject it too, or accept it?
Ella S.
*temp banned*
I affirm that wisdom is the highest virtue from which all other virtues follow, as well as the inherently rational character of wisdom. So, yes, I accept it. It's why I brought it up.
I'm aware that you disagree. I'm alright with agreeing to disagree. I doubt we're going to see eye to eye on the subject, because we've already discussed the fact that I do not have the moral intuitions that you base your morality off of. The rational intuition is all I have for forming normative statements, so I have to follow a philosophy that derives its morality from it.
ChieftheCef
Active Member
Can you go into more detail about how anything can be spiritual? I'm on the fence
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Spirituality is one of those words that can mean different things to different people. To some it can ONLY a feeling of the presence (or interaction with at an experiential level) with a divine being. For others it has a more subtle meaning. For myself, I feel something "holy" (if we're being liberal with the term) when I behold nature, up to and including beholding the stars on a clear night out in the country. It is a sense of numinousness. A recognition that I am a small part of some great thing... some great thing that is happening NOW.
Of course I've had spiritual experiences while meditating and a few other ways involved with religion (aka. reading the Gita). But I've also sensed something spiritual or "holy" if you'd like from completely mundane things.
"To me, every hour of the day and night is an unspeakable perfect miracle."
--Walt Whitman
What's your take on spirituality? Why are you on the fence about it? (It's fine that you're on the fence--a mark a discerning thinker--, I'm just curious why.)
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Must have missed this post. Sorry, Ella.
Well, the ethics I am most prone to see as true, is an ethics based upon axioms which are then extrapolated (using logic) into objective moral judgments.
I have brought up "moral intuitionism" before. This is because one of my favorite moral theories (moral non-naturalism), MIGHT depend on our moral intuitions as a foundation. That is a bit troubling to hard-nosed logicians like you and I. But I also see some ways in which such a position might be defended. Moral intuitionism is dubious at first glance, and we shouldn't ever forget that. But neither is it implausible, and it certainly isn't dead in the water.
Keep in mind, another theory I like, hedonistic utilitarianism, in no way relies on moral intuitions. It's logic and axioms all the way down.
Where I would promote the use of moral intuitions is in testing such-and-such a moral theory. Our intuitions have a sort of mild veto power in moral discourse. I think it's perfectly fine to bring in moral intuitions as a "test" of a problematic aspect of a given moral theory. If used this way, are intuitions the "foundation" of a moral theory. No. They are simply a tool to criticize moral theories that present themselves as water-tight.
For example, remember my pleasure machine example which I advanced as a good criticism of monistic hedonism?
Well, the ethics I am most prone to see as true, is an ethics based upon axioms which are then extrapolated (using logic) into objective moral judgments.
I have brought up "moral intuitionism" before. This is because one of my favorite moral theories (moral non-naturalism), MIGHT depend on our moral intuitions as a foundation. That is a bit troubling to hard-nosed logicians like you and I. But I also see some ways in which such a position might be defended. Moral intuitionism is dubious at first glance, and we shouldn't ever forget that. But neither is it implausible, and it certainly isn't dead in the water.
Keep in mind, another theory I like, hedonistic utilitarianism, in no way relies on moral intuitions. It's logic and axioms all the way down.
Where I would promote the use of moral intuitions is in testing such-and-such a moral theory. Our intuitions have a sort of mild veto power in moral discourse. I think it's perfectly fine to bring in moral intuitions as a "test" of a problematic aspect of a given moral theory. If used this way, are intuitions the "foundation" of a moral theory. No. They are simply a tool to criticize moral theories that present themselves as water-tight.
For example, remember my pleasure machine example which I advanced as a good criticism of monistic hedonism?
ChieftheCef
Active Member
I'm very open to the idea that everything is spiritual, for me everything is god. We all play a part in the interaction of each other including rocks. To me, Nature is alive, which many have called god. I'm just trying to draw the connection in a sort of logical form that I can explain to my friends. How exactly are mundane things "holy"? I get the jist of what you mean by "holy".
Also, is spiritual experience required from the object or action or whatever for it to be spiritual? DO all things make you feel spiritual? I definitely have gotten that feeling from gazing at the stars, and being in the woods, and interacting with animals including insects. Just to virtue signal, I recently helped a hornet out of a spider web. It came back to thank me, but I was scared. But I'm sure she'd know I'd help her again. WIsh I wasn't so scared of bees.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
If that's your position, "everything is God" then you should come chat with us in the pantheism DIR. I've had some useful discussions there about what is/is not holy about reality. And don't worry about the "requirement" to identify as a pantheist in order to join the DIR. I don't "identify" as a pantheist (which is pretty typical of pantheists) so as far as myself and most who post there, you need only be curious about (or even critical of) pantheism in order to be a valuable contributor to the conversations that transpire there.
I'm scared of bees too. When I was 16, I was cleaning gutters as an odd job and I accidentally stirred up some wasps. They got me good. And my co-worker had taken the ladder away to do some other work, so there was no way for me to get down off the top of the house. I got stung a ton of times. I avoid every kind of wasp and bee ever since.
I don't think pantheists have any requirements for belief or practice as most other religious perspectives do. Pantheism is more of an attitude than a doctrine.
But that's just my take. I'm willing to bet there are some "doctrinal pantheists" out there. I'm not very interested in such a point of view.
BTW, I "identify" as an atheist. My interpretations of reality more so reflect that of a godless universe, than a universe created or operated by a sentient being. What do you "identify" as? It's cool if you aren't comfortable categorizing yourself if that's what's up.
ChieftheCef
Active Member
Yeah, bees can be bad but like all things they're good too. I'm a science derived pluralistic panentheist polytheist. I essentially believe one feature of space time, to me, a creator god, besides gravity that creates planets and uses is consciousness. I believe consciousness is primary to spacetime. That means everything is in some way filtering or picking up like a radio that receives consciousness. It explains why plants can be conscious, and they are very clearly, they can learn and live, but so can sharks with brains.
Whateverist
Active Member
Interesting discussion. Sorry to arrive so late. With Vulcanlogician I agree that moral intuitions are the primary thing where morality is concerned. But with Ella I do think the pursuit of wisdom regarding how to live, what to value and how to find meaning in life is probably the top of the heap where virtues are concerned. However I don't think virtues are a top/down affair. Everything that matters matters and there is no more a settled procedure for acquiring wisdom than there is a master decision tree for moral action.
Clearly the pan'ists are my people.
Last edited:
Whateverist
Active Member
Had to come back to weigh in on the original post. I think remaining silent is valuable spiritually though I mostly avoid using the "s" word. But I tend to think of it as making a womb of silence in our minds for insights and realizations to form is the primary value. I naturally value reason but I don't find it hard to attend to that. But understanding the big picture often requires a gestalt that can escape careful analysis.
I feel like there are many aspects of our psyche with the vast majority of our cognitive processing taking place subliminally. We can't just manufacture that same processing through deliberate intention nor do we need to. It is better to access the capacity and the fruits it reveals on its own terms. This takes sensitivity, as if we were stalking something elusive. It isn't unlike writing where when the muse leads the way, the writing just flows but when we're on our own it can feel like heavy lifting. People master creative activities of all sorts. Stalking our talents, seducing the muse is possible but we have to avoid racing to the finish line and inserting our best guess. Anything worth doing is worth doing right and you can't do that with an eye on the clock. *gets down off of soapbox*
Last edited:
Whateverist
Active Member
Excellent. I’d use the word more often if could be sure it would be understood in your way. But as with “God” I fear there is so much associated with the words that I’d offend the best such people and inflame the belligerence of the rest.
Well if Whitman said it it must be holy but “holy” is another word which some will consider as their trademarked property. So I prefer “sacred” and rarely divine (provided that doesn’t entail “a divinity”).
ChieftheCef
Active Member
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Well, I don't use the word pretty much ever, precisely because it is misconstrued by the people I communicate with concerning my religious beliefs. I make an exception here in the pantheist group because many here are on that wavelength.
I think pretty much what an atheist thinks. No intelligent or anthropomorphic creator exists.
But I also think that a sense of "holiness," "divinity" and the like are human conscious states and don't necessarily belong to theists alone. In fact, I think (if we go back long enough in human history) these feelings of holiness precede religion. It is from these feelings and conscious states that the "nub" of religion developed. So, being human, it should be no surprise that an atheist should experience them.
As a pantheist, I personally embrace these feelings. And because I don't believe in God, I associate these feelings with the natural world. Your typical atheist is less prone to embrace these feelings, and more prone to call them misguided, or associate them with religion proper. There is some truth to the typical atheist's interpretation of things. If you wander into a pentecostal church you may "learn" to enter these ecstatic states from your fellow church-goers. But I like to point out that (in addition to that) they also represent a more primal aspect of our human nature.
Last edited:
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
It's an attitude that I try to employ in my life. It's from the Old Testament... the book of Ecclesiastes.
"For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to throw away;
a time to tear, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace"
(I'm not a Jew or a Christian. But I love this passage. The book as a whole ain't too shabby either. I think it is an attempt at reconciling what one desires with the state of the world. I can't really give you the particulars of the "method" I employ. I merely reflect on the verses when I am feeling helpless or am about to act.)
Whateverist
Active Member
Wouldn't it be convenient? But no more likely than that the Spanish naming the ocean on my side of the continent the "Pacific" made it any more tame. The mystery remains a mystery. God is a place holder name for something primordial, basic and essential for making sense of how physics and physiology ever give rise to what we experience. It isn't fairy dust but it isn't just the residue of sub atomic billiard balls either.
Something related I just read in TMWT:
Last edited:
ChieftheCef
Active Member
I love that poem too. I bet it was "resurrected" from Pagan prayer poetry too. I wish I could find the old one if it is. It's a right-for-the-job attitude.
Ella S.
*temp banned*
I do.
I find it hard to view intuitionism as plausible. I know, that's ironic, given my love of the rationalist philosophers who laid the groundwork for a metaethics based on rational intuition.
I cannot say that intuitionism is impossible, though. There are also some arguments to be had that logic itself is a formalization of the rational intuition and that this is the same intuition that lays the foundation of our morality. That idea does make me think and, to be honest, I am not quite sure what my position on it is yet.
However, I think when our reason leads us to a counter-intuitive conclusion, the reasonable conclusion is the one to be trusted in spite of our intuition. Take the Simpsons Paradox, for instance, or the Raven Paradox.
I would like to say that when intuition happens upon an accurate conclusion it seems to be more of a fluke, but could one just as easily say the same about reason? Reason does not always lead us to absolute truths. However, I do think this brings up the major difference between reason and intuition that I think demonstrates why I reject intuition so readily.
Reason does correct itself through its own process. By contrast, intuitions are assertions that are made without justification. That's why they are often taken as axiomatic or needing no justification when founding moral theories.
The problem that I see with using intuitions even as a test of a moral theory is that, well, even then we are still implicitly ascribing some kind of genuine information to that intuition. I think we have to try to be more robust than that. It could be the case that morality is counter-intuitive. In fact, I would probably argue that morality is counter-intuitive and we have good reason to expect it to be.
However, I think arguments surrounding intuitions can be persuasive for the sake of rhetoric. I just think rhetoric should supplement a core of logic and not be empty, and I see the pleasure machine argument as essentially empty rhetoric due to its reliance on intuition.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Nice to see you back, Ella.
What are these paradoxes? And how specifically do they relate to the ethical matters we are discussing? (I could, of course, Google them to find out what they are, but I figured I'd be "old school" and ask a friend.)
If it's premises are true, and its logic is sound, reason unfailingly leads us to the truth. Granted, sometimes those are big asks, but (hey) it can be done and has been done many times. Reason fails us when we make bad assumptions. The case of luminiferous ether in 19th century science is a great example of reason leading us astray. But once scientists figured out that they were (erroneously) assuming that all waves need a medium to travel through, the logical proposition was recognized as false.
(Actually, I think it happened the other way around: luminiferous ether was disproven, thus showing scientists that waves don't need a medium through which to travel.)
Last edited:
Ella S.
*temp banned*
I am still limiting what kinds of posts I make and what I reply to. I realize that I cannot figure out how to improve myself through pure introspection alone and I think I've come as far as I can there, so I'm metaphorically dipping my toes back into the water in order to collect more data.
I did stray from practicing mindfulness and I think that might be partially responsible for my brief emotional reactivity. I have to remember to react by calming down and pausing to think through my next response, if any, and compare my potential response to my standard of behavior before I put it into action. Mindfulness helps with this process.
I'm also working on maintaining my focus on my higher values so that I stop placing so much emphasis on small matters that either do not matter in the greater scope of things or that are actively counter-productive to focus on. I think this is a key feature of wisdom. I know that nobody is perfect at this, and I am still rather young and most of the people I know who are even a few years older than me come to me for advice on this, but I am still painfully aware of how much progress I still have to make on this virtue.
You are probably the one person I feel like I owe an explanation, and you might be the only person on this site that I think will actually hear me out, too. But I'm glad to address this a bit more out in the open after I have had some time to think about it.
To nitpick a bit here, this is a purely deductive approach to reason that assigns binary true/false values to the premises. I think that is an important aspect to reason and it's often what people think about when they mention logic as a formal discipline.
The problem is, of course, as you say, the truth of the premises isn't necessarily something we can always assume or be certain of. Some statements are probably true or probably false. In fact, I would probably argue that most of our practical, everyday reasoning relies on this sort of fuzziness. Decision theory is tied closely to probability theory, for instance, and science and engineering of course deal with statistical analyses frequently.
That's why the Bayesian approach is so important, which is where we are constantly putting new data back into our analysis and changing the conclusion. This is what I mean when I refer to reason as a process that approximates truth rather than leading to absolute truth.
Deductive logic only works for constructed languages like mathematics, symbolic logic, or computer languages. It has some practical application, but this is mostly for the sake of communication. I do think that's a kind of truth, but only under a coherentist model of truth.
By contrast, inductive reasoning tells us about the external world around us, and it might be the closest we have to a way of approximating truth according to the correspondence theory of truth. If we're going to say that our truths are actually objectively true independent of linguistic constructs and independent of a subjective agent to perceive them, and that they correspond to an actual mind-independent reality, then it's inductive reasoning that we have to rely on, not deduction.
At least, that's how I see it, and I am open to arguments to the contrary.
Notably, it's not that the inference rules of deduction are removed from inductive reasoning. It's just that the premises cannot be assigned as pure truth or pure falsity. The process of "reason" is the same for deduction and induction, it's just that induction is more nuanced and adaptable for real-world applications.
Both of the paradoxes deal with inductive reasoning, so they might not be the best examples to dive into until the above points are hashed out a bit more. That's why I've moved this to the bottom of my reply.
The Raven's Paradox is the idea that a green apple, for instance, is evidence that the statement "All ravens are black" is true. When one is first learning about induction, this normally feels "wrong" intuitively, which has lead to a number of arguments against the paradox by a number of philosophers on that basis.
However, if we take a moment to step back and think, the Raven Paradox begins to make more sense. We can imagine two categories of objects, "black" and "non-black." When we say "All ravens are black" we are saying that there is a third category, ravens, which exist entirely within the black category and does not overlap with the non-black one; that is to say, we are saying that no ravens are a non-black object. "No ravens are not black" necessarily describes the data implied by "All ravens are black."
If we constrain our statement to a smaller scale, say, to a room, then the reason that green apples can be evidence for all ravens being black begins to become more clear. If we sort every object into the room into black and non-black, which is a finite set, then we begin to notice something.
Take, for instance, this hypothetical assortment of objects:
-A blackberry
-A black raven
-A green apple
-An orange
There are 4 things total. When we discover that 1 of these things is both non-black and not a raven, that means there are only 3 things left that could be a non-black raven, which literally lowers the odds that one of the remaining objects is a non-black raven. When we have the room completely sorted and all non-black things in the room are in a single corner, separated from the black things on the other end, we merely need to look over all of the non-black things we collected to see if there is a raven.
Since the only non-black things in the room are a green apple and an orange, we have proven that there are no non-black ravens in the room, which would be necessary if "No ravens (in this room) are non-black," which is necessarily true if "All ravens (in this room) are black." The only requirement to prove the latter statement from the former statement is to demonstrate that the former is not a vacuous truth by showing that there is, indeed, an existent raven which is black (or "not non-black.")
But if we did come across an albino raven when sorting the room, then we would falsify the statement that "All ravens are black." A white raven is stronger evidence that "All ravens are black" is false than a green apple is evidence that "All ravens are black" is true. This does line up with our intuition because, in the real world, sorting all non-black objects in existence is infeasible. The counter-intuitive part is that a green apple is evidence at all, though, even if it is very weak evidence.
There are situations where the Raven Paradox is more apparent, such as in the above case when I limited the statements to be about objects within a certain room in order to make processing those objects more feasible. In the real world, situations like my constrained example do appear from time to time, so properly understanding the truth at hand might require double-checking our initial intuitions.
Does the raven paradox apply to ethics? It can if you support ethical naturalism, especially if it takes on a form such as evolutionary ethics where it relies on a scientific field for its conclusions. It also matters in the case of consequentialism, because information that might directly or indirectly tell us what the consequences of our actions might be can sometimes take this form.
It is not as readily applicable to deontology and virtue ethics, but I think there are arguments to be made there, too. Deontology often argues that we should imagine what would happen if we generalized our patterns of behavior into rules that everyone followed, for example, which can invoke the Raven Paradox in some circumstances. In virtue ethics, likewise, the virtues themselves are often supported by various observations about how people behave.
There is some amount of induction in all of these philosophies, so paradoxes of induction such as the Raven Paradox can be very relevant.
Last edited: