The real discussion: Values (Humans)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 15, 2015, 22:33 (3264 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: I think the discussion we really *ought* to be having is more of a meta-discussion. I hate to seem to hijack the thread but...-Like David, I am delighted to have you back with us, and the subject you've raised here really strikes at the heart of our discussions, so if I may, I'll cherry-pick the points I'd like to comment on.
 
MATT: My highest value is placed upon epistemology: How we know what we know. -We had a long discussion on epistemology, because we tried to set up an epistemological framework that would remove many of the misunderstandings that continue to dog our discussions. It might be worth revisiting that thread. -MATT: Skepticism tells us that the less concrete some fact is, the less value we should place on it. [...] So part of the discussion to me seems, that with values about faith, we should discuss our values about skepticism. (Scepticism for my good British friend!)-Scepticism is the hallmark of my own agnosticism, and it's something I am acutely conscious of. Whenever someone comes up with a theory, whether theistic or atheistic, I find myself focusing on the flaws, and of course there always are flaws because if there weren't, we would have facts and not theories. This negativity may well be a problem for some people.-MATT: I say all this because, part of the reason I tapered off on this forum wasn't from lack of interest, but from lack of movement from the practitioners. (Myself included.) -This is a very fair criticism. Most contributors have left when they have failed to convince others that their beliefs are right, and I am certainly the most guilty party because of the negative approach mentioned above. But the negativity should not be taken for a lack of respect. I would not want to offend people (and I should add that my attitude to life itself is generally very positive!). I would like to feel, though, that the forum has developed into a kind of sounding board for ideas. David has been faithful to this principle from the very beginning, and has provided us with an ongoing education, updating us on all the latest developments whether he agrees with them or not. I find this admirable. 
 
MATT: The things that motivate us to make particular arguments are values and judgments, and thanks to my friends the Stoics, I've learned that it is *these* that need to be changed, if our desire is to change hearts and minds. Otherwise we're just talking past each other in beautifully posed prose and sophistry. To what end? Isn't the point of philosophical inquiry to arrive at the truth of things? Or is there no truth here to be gained, as was the judgment of a former member, Mr. Jeliss?
-My desire has never been to change hearts and minds, unless those represent views that might cause damage to other people. The questions we discuss have preoccupied me since childhood, but the values and judgements in this context (I take it you are referring to philosophical and not moral or social values) are based fairly and squarely on trying to find “the truth of things”. I remain sceptical as to whether we will ever find it. (I think George Jelliss has in fact found a version that satisfies him.) But thanks to David, yourself, BBella, Tony and many others down through the years, I have learned an enormous amount and, for the most part, have found the discussions wonderfully stimulating. Do I actually want to change? Probably not. I'm comfortable on my picket fence, and it does not in any way stop me from enjoying all the good things in my life, while I continue to accept the not-so-good things with my own brand of Stoicism. Do I want to change other people? Yes, I probably do - not to the extent of them losing their faith, which would be a terrible responsibility, but to engender a greater sense of tolerance. Although we often have to take decisions in life, I just wish people would acknowledge that there are nearly always at least two sides to an argument!