The real discussion: Values (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, December 27, 2015, 23:40 (3252 days ago) @ dhw

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. 
> -I don't disagree, but for the participants here... it seems most of us don't disagree with the basic ideas of epistemology posited in that thread. However, David, is willing to include ideas in his epistemology that I am not. The personal experience of another being, are simply not something that I'm willing to include in a *universal* epistemology. -Maybe in the context of that thread... he can chime in. Yes, I'm aware he's discussed this somewhat in his book, but I'd like to explore the ideas more deeply. Why should society at large adopt an encompassing view that allows untestable claims the same weight as the testable? -> 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!)
> 
> 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.) 
> -> 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!-My excursions in my generation and in the one just behind me is precisely this: There may be two sides to a coin, but both sides of that coin come with thousands of years of baggage... baggage that seems okay to previous generations, but not baggage we are willing to accept on the generic notion of tradition... -This is why my studies have taken me back to Plato, Aristotle, Diogenes the Cynic (my heart of hearts!)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"