Q&A #3: Question One

My first question based on this weeks reading we touched on briefly during the last class conversation: can science provide the human life with validation and purpose? We discussed briefly how evolutionary theory would suggest that our purpose is to further the species and ensure its survival, however I would like to suggest an alternative. Perhaps the methods of scientific inquiry and the fact that we are seemingly always trying to find answers, could be evidence that as conscious and sentient beings, our purpose is to keep looking for answers. As organisms with the ability to categorize, analyze, and interpret sensory data, perhaps it is the purpose of our being to eternally search for knowledge and the nature of the world in which we occupy. The obvious objection to my suggestion is what evidence am I using to base my claim off of, aside from the observable fact that there are many unanswered questions about our existence still. Personally the idea that I am purely here to procreate leaves many questions about the human experience, and so I am contemplating whether the pursuit of knowledge itself is enough to justy

Q&A #3: Question Two

My second question after reading this weeks article is about what the criteria for a faith based epistemology would look like? Obviously empirical evidence would not be a strict requirement, but how would we validate intuitions and feelings as being evidence of truth about the world? Is there a hierarchy in which some people's intuitions about human nature or the existence of the soul are more accurate? It seems that one aspect of this epistemology would be the claim that: since there is no scientifically explanation for phenomenon X, then X must be explainable by supernatural explanation. Ideas such as human consciousness are often used in this debate, as psychologists, neuroscientists, and biologists still cannot locate the anatomical processes which we label the conscious mind. Even if some phenomena are not explainable by scientific inquiry thus far, it does not mean that this will be thee case forever. My other speculation is that a theistic epistemology would be based on the Scriptures and the literature of clergymen and other faith workers. If this is so, then wouldn't their system of knowledge be based on human writings and thus be based in the natural world?

God without the supernatural?

The title of my blog comes from a book by a philosopher of religion named Peter Forrest who defends a position he calls scientific theism. One objection Forrest has with the notions ascribed to the supernatural is the model is outdated, thus the idea of God as an anthropomorphic entity resembling human beings. While I was intrigued by Forrest's position, later in the sample you can view by searching Google books and reading the first few pages, he decides to defend a God that created us not for our earthly lives but for an afterlife. I would suggest reading the first couple pages, including an introduction to the books overall themes, as some of his concepts are interesting and the argument to support them would be entertaining from a metaphysical perspective.

Q&A #2: Question Two

The other question I had based on this weeks essay was what von Glaserfeld's opinion of how language plays a role in our understanding of reality. Many theorists in language and cultural analysis insist that we live in a world of verbal realism, that is we bring concepts and objects into reality by having terms to signify them. We discussed briefly that things must be brought into the observers reality, so my question is a word or term for a concept enough to include it in our reality according to the author? If someone explains and defines the term God or beauty for me, does  that mean that both have entered my experience and thus are now part of the reality I construct? If this is so what about terms that I simply have not acquired, surely our language and vocabulary develop as we age, so does that mean the reality I create exponentially grows based on the language skills I gain? Its difficult to state my inquiry here so I will try to bring it up in class tomorrow, but if anyone has any thoughts I would love to hear them

Q&A #2: Question One

One of my questions in regards to this weeks reading is how we are using the term and what is considered to be "experience". It seems for the most part we have been using the term to describe tangible and sensory experiences such as observing something visually, coming into contact with solid objects etc. My inquiry would be whether we would consider mental contemplation and cognitive activities such as the imagination, to be forms of experience. For example if I had never heard the term apple, and had never come into contact with one in the material world. One day I hear the term apple and am try to imagine it, the person who uttered the term gives me some terms to help me picture it: red, smooth, round, etc. In my mind I picture a fruit with a striking resemblance to an apple, does this count as experiencing the apple? In the same way when we see a play or film and are moved to tears or drawn to the edge of our seat in fear, are we not experiencing the emotions of the story via the mechanism of imagining ourselves in the narrative? Questions and comments are always welcome so blog on fellow constructors of reality.

Further inofrmation on Coherence

The following link is a brief reading on the Coherence Theory of Truth. I believe it was Heigel and Spinoza which defended the theory so search for some work by them as well.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/

Q&A #1: Question 2

My second question regarding this week's topic was to respond to Kant's notion that pleasure in the aesthetic is not grounded in nor produces desire. From our reading alone there are several sections in which Zangwill discusses that we seek agreement in our aesthetic judgments, we desire the agreement of other about our claims about beauty. In addition to desiring universal agreement about our claims of beauty, the desire to encounter the beautiful and the aesthetic seems to me to be a plausible theory. Given Kant's support of a priori faculties and abilities in the human mind, would it be untenable to say that people are drawn towards the aesthetic; that we have a natural inclination and desire to seek out the beautiful. While it would be difficult to explain what that inclination would look like, these were just some possible responses I mulled over when rereading the piece for a second time.