literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

http://sulekha.com/chpost.asp?for...ilosophy&show=0&cid=79854

Seeking Consensus vs Seeking Truth
Sitaram's comments in IRC Undernet #philosophy
Our self/body/mind is composed of atoms, molecules, cells, tissues,
none of which are in there own right a soul or a person. Perhaps it
is the case that all people who have ever lived and the history and
dialectic of culture/literature constitute a meme which is soul, like
world soul

None of us as individuals constitute our native land (e.g. USA) nor
do most individuals possess the collective knowledge to may our
societies and technology work... yet nations and technologies
certainly exist
Consider, in Homer's Iliad, the battlefield dialogue between Glaukon
and Diomedes, where they essentially agree that the only afterlife
they have is in the memory of future generations
Then, compare it with the "Myth of Ur" at the end of Plato's Republic

Consider why Socrates says that "philosophy is a preparation for
death" (perhaps in the beginning of Republic, I forget)

In that movie "Contact" the woman scientist scoffs at that which
cannot be seen, so the theologian asks her if she loved her late
father, shocked she says "of course", and he then asks her "show me
that love"

Mathematician Kurt Godel has a mystical side, and felt that
the "soul" must persist simply based on laws of conservation of
matter and energy and potential
Paul Davies, a physicist, wrote a fascinating book "God and the New
Physics" where he applies recent theories in mathematical
physics/relativity/quantum to age old religious concepts

Consider the movie "Cube" in which 6 people wake up inside a bizarre
cube with thousands of rooms, some of which have fatal traps.... a
puzzle which they must solve to survive... it is a metaphor in a way
for our experience of existence

As Pascal says in his meditations "You are embarked" , i.e. you
already find yourself in the odd circumstance of reality.... and you
are challenged to solve the puzzle, ... even no decision (inaction)
is a form of decision with consequences... and each moment (like each
room), may have a lethal trap (even crossing the street)

When we turn our attention upon the "self", to study it, often, we
transform it by that very act of scrutiny... think of Heisenberg's
uncertainty, than one can never know both the position and velocity
of a particle simultaneously, since whatever we do to scrutinize it
alters its state

Sometimes it is better to suggest and invite, rather than to
criticize and refute and argue... think of Plato's metaphor for
dialectic, the weaver's loom with warp, woof and shuttle... thing of
clotho and laches etc, the three fates at the end of republic,
weaving tapestry of destiny

Of what value is consensus, really,.... where is the consensus of
ancient Athens (if there was any), where is the consensus of the
middle ages, or the renaissance? Why do we give so much credence to
such an impoverished numerical phenomenon such as consensus?
Many confuse "democracy" with majority rule, but it has every bit as
much to do with the preservation of the rights and freedoms of
minority opinion and interest

Where does one ever see unanimous consensus agreement in Plato's
dialogues?

Kierkegaard said "the difficulty is not in the way, rather, the way
is in the difficulty"

Sartre had the courage to spurn the popularity of prizes, and to
reject his own brand of existentialism when it was reaching a height
of popularity... in what way did Sartre seek consensus?

Moses Maimonides addressed his "Guide for the Perplexed" not to all,
but to that rare person, perhaps lone individual, who sought to
understand at a deeper level

Buddha suggested that there are many vehicles (teachings) to ferry
one across the river of samsara suffering,... and Wittgenstein said
that once we ascend a ladder which we have constructed (to reach a
higher plane) we must then kick away the artificial construct

As Buddha also said, when you reach the other shore, if you then put
your canoe on your shoulders and carry it about.... you are missing
the point

I am fond of the "Euthypro Problem" in Plato's dialogues, namely,
does the Divinity like goodness/virtue because of its innate
qualities, or is virtue good simply by fiat, if the divinity
pronounces it good....

And also, Hume's "gap", between knowledge and morality, namely that
there is no "IS" which implies an "OUGHT" (so Hume claims"

The devil is always in the details

e.g.... it is relatively simple, in some "ten commandments" to
pronounce murder or adultery in broad generality as an evil... but..
in the "details"... let us say you run a shoe store (with popular
shoes made by child labor in the third world), and you are off to the
polls to choose between a candidate who advocates a flat taxation
(independent of ability to pay)... etc. etc. etc.... (i.e many
details....) Where is good and evil, right and wrong then?

Consider how the Republican and Democratic parties have drastically
changed and transformed since the time of Lincoln (when it was the
Republicans who stood for civil liberty for all and abolition, while
southern democrats were pro slavery)

Given the history of the parties in America... in what sense
does "consensus" ever settle on a unilateral view

The queen of sheba asked king Solomon a riddle: what is the one thing
i can say to someone which if they are happy, they will become sad,
but if they are sad, they will become happy... he answered "this too
shall pass"

If humility is a virtue, and if god possesses all virtues, then why
would god seek praise (worship) especially from lowly ant-like beings

If god is both perfect and also all wise, then here is a paradox.
Being perfect and complete, to create a world would be a senseless
act (since what is the purpose if you are complete)
Yet, if there WAS a purpose for creation, that means that god lacked
something, and hence was not perfect..
If god is omnipresent, then god must be in the heart of Satan, yet if
Satan has god in his heart, he cant be all bad
But if Satan DOES NOT have god in his heart, then there is that one
place where god IS NOT, hence god is not omnipresent
Aristotle and Plato both say "philosophy begins in wonder"

Wonder is like shock value
Is it not Miranda (wonder) in Shakespeare's Tempest who says "Brave
New World, which has such manner of things".... and the reply is "Tis
New to thee"

Much has been said here today regarding "truth"... but the
word "truth" has many meanings... let us take the simple example of a
child who steals a cookie from the cookie jar, thinking that no one
is watching

We have secretly observed the child in the act of theft, so we now
confront them and ask, "did you steal a cookie?" and they say "no"...

But, then we show them a photo we have secretly taken, plainly
showing them taking the cookie, so now they admit the TRUTH and
say, "yes, I confess. I stole a cookie"
This is a simple meaning of truth. even the child understands this
simple meaning of the word "truth".

But, when Socrates attempts to define justice, or beauty, or when
Pilate says to Christ "What is truth?", now we are talking about a
very different, broader meaning of truth, more difficult to define

When we ask, "Is it true that the three interior angles are exactly
equal to two right angles," well.. yes it is true in EUCLIDEAN
geometry (and quite provable and precise), ... BUT..

In hyperbolic geometry, the angles are slightly greater than two
right angles,... and in elliptical geometry, they are slightly LESS
than two right angles...

The mathematician Hilbert asserted, around 1903, in the world
conference of mathematicians, that anything which is true in
mathematics MUST be provable.... yet..

By 1930's, mathematician Kurt Godel proved that there must exist in
any axiomatic system, certain truths which ARE NOT provable in the
context of that axiomatic system

Certain things were discussed here today concerning consensus and
agreement as an indication that the truth has been reached. Surely,
the desire to persuade or force all others To agree upon something is
the motivation for much argument and rhetoric... but stop and
consider the tremendous survival advantage if each individual is
slightly different and unilateral consensus can never be reached on
key issues...

Even identical twins, raised by the same parents in the same
environment and education will demonstrate significant differences in
the understanding and outlook, and may disagree on major issues.
It is precisely because we are all different and unique that one will
never see unanimous agreement on major issues... and this is a
survival advantage to the species, since if we were so similar as to
easily agree,... then we would not be likely to diversify in our
choices of career, geographic dwelling, etc... for example, no one
would choose to be a sanitation worker, because all would agree it is
an undesirable occupation

Get your own free IRC Chat room