Excellent piece. I recommend two good books on this topic (in addition to The Theory of Moral Sentiments which I always recommend for ever :) )
Natural Law and the Theory of Property: Grotius to Hume by Stephen Buckle. Bit of a slog at times, but really covers the transition from earlier natural law to the late medieval/renaissance Lockean period.
Law, Legislation and Liberty by FA Hayek, goes a lot into the difference between law and legislation, the former more like natural law (along with norma) and the latter “that crap the government tries to enforce”.
One reason why the legal professions, and judges in particular, need an in-depth education in classical humanities if their jobs are to make any sense. We can witness what happens if that's not the case. Great job Harrison sussing out the contradictions that modern philosophical positions produce with respect to law.
Fascinating reading for someone who didn’t go to university to study philosophy or anything else for that matter yet you write in such a clear down to earth way you make it very easy to understand what you are meaning. I find philosophy to be a deep complex and engrossing area of study which opens the mind and for those of you also familiar with it like Harrison, your knowledge in this area must be very helpful in understanding why the world appears to have suddenly gone mad!
I take some comfort in your words that humanity has survived thus far but only because the evil that exists is in parts of the world and not the entire world.
When you describe our whole world where IF everything goes against our evolution our learned experience our innate human nature our instincts and natural law and God is forsaken feels to me exactly what the globalists have planned for our whole world and everyone in it and if they are successful humanity won’t survive.
From all of the many different subjects that you have studied as well as all of the different subject areas that your subscribers have studied, as reading through all of the comments you all sound like you’re on the same page intellectually, how can we the people affect change sufficiently to at least alter if not able to entirely prevent their plans for all of our destruction?
//...feels to me exactly what the globalists have planned for our whole world and everyone in it and if they are successful humanity won’t survive.//
Yeah, that does seem like a distinct possibility. But there's a hope in that even though this is what they want, it's difficult to deny reality so hard that what they want will stick. It's very easy to miscalculate in such a situation.
//how can we the people affect change sufficiently to at least alter if not able to entirely prevent their plans for all of our destruction?//
That's a tough one. I think the best we can do at this point is just share knowledge in the hopes that as many as possible can be prepared to see through the lies and manipulations. And then, take the forest passage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdme9Eta2hg&pp=ygULbWluZG1hdHRlcnM%3D
Thank you Harrison… I appreciate your efforts to enlighten me and for this link you posted that I just watched which brings more enlightenment with the great insights and the thoughtful discussions with Luc and the others reflecting on taking the forest passage. I think buying and reading this book will be a helpful guide with how to adapt to today’s tumultuous times. I was feeling paralyzed by my fear but now I see that plays right into their hands so I must stop being so reactive and I mustn’t focus so on the culture wars but recognize the big picture of what is taking place with totalitarianism taking hold and steel myself for it with a quiet resistance to the best of my ability at this stage of my life where I no longer feel young and competent but older and more vulnerable anyway even without any of this now occurring! Thanks for taking this time for me.. I am gaining an appreciation and understanding of the benefits of looking at various philosophies where I can now recognize some of the differences between them and even recognize them in real life in today’s lax law systems. Boy have you opened up a whole new world for me introducing the subject of philosophy which does aid one in understanding better what we are all experiencing in the West.
Yep, do check out the Forest Passage! It's short, and deep, and I think it will help you find more of that strength within you to conquer the fear. I know it helped me!
Apr 25, 2023·edited Apr 25, 2023Liked by Harrison Koehli
Thankyou for this. I am in full agreement as a natural man.
What I saw a while back was a comment about the hierarchy of man and law and that all governments are created by man to protect the property of man.
Our trust has been misplaced and subverted. I would argue it was intentionally done by the intellectual elite in order to please the aristocracy who were seeking rent or favour from the Royalty or Monarchy in return for their loyalty.
Magnificent, clear writing with profound implications . Real discernment and distinction, practical and something that good people need to think deeply upon. Then try to live out, to counter the mechanistic evil that threatens to engulf all that's good.
Thanks Harrison! I will check it out and if it helped you that’s about the best endorsement for Forest Passage there is! The covid fear campaigns were enough to last a lifetime and now witnessing millions of deaths completely ignored by the msm and governments feels surreal. Witnessing all of the totalitarian measures creeping in everywhere in the entire western world IS frigging scary but if we can only wake up enough people to see the end goal is for the elites to have complete and total control of the global population we might survive this massive global takeover!
I'm unconvinced by the non-materialist position though, and I can't see a way to incorporate non-materialism into an intelligible account of the universe without leading to incoherence. Materialism, at least by my lights, doesn't necessitate a rejection of teleological thinking. I would argue they are complimentary.
We should be careful when trying to justify a metaphysics based on what we want the ethical outcomes to be (eg Natural Law, etc). This is motivated reasoning and will lead us astray.
Just because we are meat machines at the end of the day doesn't mean beauty, goodness, truth, justice, etc are meaningless.
If there's a teleological materialism that accounts for real beauty, goodness, truth, and justice, I'm all for it. I think Thomas Nagel's work in Mind and Cosmos might fit that name. He proposed something like a natural teleology. I'd just add that many materialist philosophers do explicitly reject any form of teleological thinking, so we'll need to do something about that. But I'm glad that some, like you, find them complementary. That gives me some hope!
Also, on motivated reasoning and justifying pre-existing ethical outcomes, that may the a common phenomenon, but it isn't necessarily part of the natural law. NL would say that there exist objective standards, but that we may not know what they are. It is a matter of practical reason to determine what they are, what works and what doesn't, but it doesn't necessarily start with set judgments in place.
I think Dennett makes a good attempt at charting a basically materialist worldview that preserves teleology in From Bacteria To Bach and Back. Perhaps you've read it already? The Audible version is good for what it's worth.
This is a very good article. It speaks well to a much of my thoughts, especially how morality is self inherent through reflection, and while religion points the way towards morality, in no way is it a prerequisite for understanding the value inherent in practicing moral behavior or developing virtue.
Magnificent, clear writing with profound implications . Real discernment and distinction, practical and something that good people need to think deeply upon. Then try to live out, to counter the mechanistic evil that threatens to engulf all that's good.
This is the key undefended sentence: “Rather, the elements are as they are precisely so that such possibilities could be realized. All of this is is an expression of the ‘eternal law.’”
Why think that this sentence is more likely than not to be true? Yes, it would feel really nice if it were true. Perhaps that people believe it even makes the world better. But neither of those considerations is relevant.
In this piece you did a passable job of characterizing your opponent (albeit in the most tendentious possible tone), but you failed to defend your point of view at the key moment. To convince a rational person, you need to provide an argument with the quoted bit as a conclusion rather than mere assertion.
The materialists have all sorts of arguments, the causal closure of physical reality being the foremost. There’s no theoretical need to posit anything else. We can explain physical reality without teleology. Or at least without the sort of teleology you seem to posit.
If you’re actually interested in this, look into the philosophy of the fine-tuning problem. For life to be possible, certain constants of physics had to be within a very narrow range. This seems arbitrary. Some people like to posit a designer to explain this phenomenon.
//This is the key undefended sentence: “Rather, the elements are as they are precisely so that such possibilities could be realized. All of this is is an expression of the ‘eternal law.’”
Why think that this sentence is more likely than not to be true? //
Because if it weren't true, everything else that emerges within reality would be both meaningless and at the same time miraculous, which is absurd. On the one hand you have the coincidence theory where physics just so happens to support chemistry, which just so happens to allow for biochemicals, which just so happen to be able to be arranged in such a way to support biological forms (the organization of which is highly arbitrary and just so happens to be able to support molecular machinery which can produce and maintain such structures), which just so happen to be able to develop consciousness (which did not previously exist), which just so happens to be able to comprehend all of this. And on the other hand, you have the position that rationality is a fundamental part of the cosmos. Why anyone would think the former more likely than the latter is a mystery to me.
//Yes, it would feel really nice if it were true. Perhaps that people believe it even makes the world better. But neither of those considerations is relevant.//
Not necessarily nicer or better - but certainly more rational.
//In this piece you did a passable job of characterizing your opponent (albeit in the most tendentious possible tone), but you failed to defend your point of view at the key moment. To convince a rational person, you need to provide an argument with the quoted bit as a conclusion rather than mere assertion.//
If by hyperrational left-hemisphere-dominant schizo-autists, then yeah, agreed!
//The materialists have all sorts of arguments, the causal closure of physical reality being the foremost. There’s no theoretical need to posit anything else.//
I disagree. Causal closure does not explain the very concept and reality-status of a "theoretical need" in the first place. For that you need a theory that accounts for mind itself, and all the materialistic options on the table are laughably inept.
//We can explain physical reality without teleology. Or at least without the sort of teleology you seem to posit.//
We can *approach* a different teleology like that, but it will look something like Nagel's. And Nagel himself struggled to even imagine how it would work without a cosmic mind. His reason: because he doesn't *like* the idea of a cosmic mind. How very rational!
//If you’re actually interested in this, look into the philosophy of the fine-tuning problem. For life to be possible, certain constants of physics had to be within a very narrow range. This seems arbitrary. Some people like to posit a designer to explain this phenomenon.//
It is refreshing to see anyone make an assertion like this these days.
Of course, my studies have led me to significantly different conclusions about all these questions.
The use of Spiritual Memory has opened up a very different story about Mankind and God. Taking many of these questions off Earth to our precursor civilizations that are easily billions of years old, we can see everything that has happened here as a reenactment - or under the influence - of earlier traditions that were developed by beings more "advanced" than ourselves in the very deep past.
This post is kind of interesting, but what I can't fathom is how this argues against materialism or that we are not machines. Did your thought just drift from the subject as you wrote?
I didn't spell it out explicitly, but the entire teleological worldview, on which the article is premised, is not materialistic. Materialism doesn't acknowledge the existence or efficacy of formal or final causes or objective moral values. That means no purposes, no anticipation of higher levels of informational complexity or organization. All of that is accidental. Including reason. With any luck, some materialists might read this article, agree that it makes sense, and come to the startling realization that they are not in fact materialists.
Apr 27, 2023·edited Apr 27, 2023Liked by Harrison Koehli
I would like be on your team, materialism is hopeless and it sucks, and who knows, maybe I just fail to understand your point, but I don't see anything like a refutation. Materialism took over in science because of its utility as a model. As the realm of what science can explain expanded, materialism started to seep into the general culture. There are prominent white spots, like consciousness and the origin of the universe, but does it really refute materialism?
Are layers of complexity that we can observe in the universe and our own makeup point at something better than materialism, that we are more than animals suffering from overdevelopment of cognitive faculties? If so, I sure don't see how. If we weren't complex enough we wouldn't be able to ask these questions in the first place, see anthropic principle.
What else? Oh, the final section about natural law - does it really challenge materialism? morality and law could emerge from our basic nature (though it should be evident that we are never reaching wide consensus as to what exactly objective morality entails) but what of it if it's the nature of an animal, meat machine?
I feel like you don't really engage with materialistic framework here.
//I would like be on your team, materialism is hopeless and it sucks, and who knows, maybe I just fail to understand your point, but I don't see anything like a refutation. //
Yep, a full refutation would take a book. My intent was only to introduce aspects of an alternative in this post.
//Materialism took over in science because of its utility as a model.//
Specifically as a result of its utility as a model for so-called *physical* reality. Yet the great physicists were mostly not materialists (Pauli, Einstein, Planck). But even then, I'd say that wasn't the main reason it took over - it just helped. The ground had already been set in motion by Descartes, who provided the dualist framework in which to separate res cogitans and res extensa. By limiting reality to the latter, philosophy cut off any coherent place for the real existence of things like logic (the rules of which are nonphysical) and consciousness/experience (which cannot be explained or understood in terms of quantities).
//As the realm of what science can explain expanded, materialism started to seep into the general culture. There are prominent white spots, like consciousness and the origin of the universe, but does it really refute materialism?//
In any meaningful sense, yes. All materialistic accounts of consciousness fail. For a starter, I'd recommend checking out David Ray Griffin's book, Unsnarling the World-Knot.
//Are layers of complexity that we can observe in the universe and our own makeup point at something better than materialism, that we are more than animals suffering from overdevelopment of cognitive faculties? If so, I sure don't see how. If we weren't complex enough we wouldn't be able to ask these questions in the first place, see anthropic principle.//
Complexity is different than consciousness, for one. An organism can hypothetically be complex without consciousness. Complexity may be associated with it, but it cannot be understood in terms of complexity. As for the anthropic principle, I see that as hand-waving. It's not an explanation. Here's Langan on that question, for example:
"The initial (weak) version, the Weak Anthropic Principle or WAP, begins with the trivial if somewhat Bayesian point that our cosmological observations of the universe reveal a capacity for life “because” a life-bearing universe is the only kind of universe in which there are living beings able to make cosmological observations. But while this seems to imply that there exists a domain of many universes in which such a universe can be passively distinguished by the circumstantial constraint that it contain living observers, the WAP offers no ready explanation for such a domain. Indeed, to those not convinced of its virtues, the WAP almost seems to add an unnecessary dose of explanatory red ink to the cosmological ledger."
//What else? Oh, the final section about natural law - does it really challenge materialism? morality and law could emerge from our basic nature (though it should be evident that we are never reaching wide consensus as to what exactly objective morality entails) but what of it if it's the nature of an animal, meat machine?//
Teleology as real is the challenge to materialism. If you accept things have real purposes, that goals are real and not just illusions, you can't be a card-carrying materialist. There's no such thing as a meat machine - that's the point. Even animals have purposes and engage creatively with their environments. Alongside Griffin, I'd also recommend Iain McGilchrist's The Matter with Things (and maybe some of Sheldrake's books).
As for morality emerging, it wouldn't be morality, merely species-specific behaviors devoid of purpose or any degree of self-awareness (and even then, I'd argue that would require a non-material reality to the possibilities thus actualized, but that's another story). A true morality on the most basic level, IMO, says that there is an objective criterion for something being better than something else. Criteria are not and cannot be material. Any such standard implies the real existence of a rational mind.
Apr 27, 2023·edited Apr 27, 2023Liked by Harrison Koehli
I guess that's it for me for now, I can't engage much further because I haven't thought about the subject from this angle, or maybe I just don't understand it at all still. Can't say I'm remotely convinced, but that's at least some food for thought. I will look at these books some time
Well, I tried to "like" it but I'm not sure my "like" took, but I'm not sure law and philosophy really mix well. One is real world deliberations while the other by definition is of the mind.
One would hope the two could meet together, but lately seems like philosophy has become a school only a few......ah forget it.
I tried to "like it" so there ought be 4 likes now, but whether there are or not, I know this.
If this posts - there will be 4 comments.
Living real time is the best way to live and philosophy is wonderful for those who got the time to think about this and that and lately the law seems to be nothing but corrupt - at least in the "west".
I can prove this is the 4th comment - I already have. But I don't think my "like" has shown up yet, but oh well - eff it I reckon.
Here's how I think they mix. All science, for example, has an underlying philosophy. Oftentimes it is implicit and not openly acknowledged. There is "philosophy of law" which attempts to understand what the law is, what are its justifications, how we can know it, etc. Ethics is practical philosophy. So, with just a little bit of philosophical awareness, science, law, and ways of living can all be examples of practical philosophy.
Hey - I'm just engaging in discourse here out of appreciation and by the way, my "like" just took - it was the 20th. Even though it ought to have been the 4th, but whatever, one like is as good as the next I reckon.
Of course everything has an underlying "philosophy" I say with respect, but to even have a philosophy suggest there must be a mind to think it.....and for me, the wind from the east has appeal - it resonates. Whereas, the winds of ideas form the past I think are diminishing.
Not trying to be flippant, but is there science behind the law including the law of philosophy?
This is why I think semantics are not trivial and I also think there is a law to everything including philosophy and including uncertainty for that matter. I suspect this law precedes philosophy, the concept of it, but that is subjective of course.
Semantics are important and without better communication nothing is gonna get better is what I think.
Philosophy is like dreaming about clouds as the wind blows over.
Logic would be one. Philosophy can be many things, but illogical is not one of them.
Philosophy is like understanding why the wind blows, and what must be true about the world such that the wind can blow and humans can experience and understand it.
Apr 24, 2023·edited Apr 24, 2023Liked by Harrison Koehli
Can't argue with that but it is a tad circular.....I mean what comes first - philosophy or the wind that blows?
I'd put forth, that the wind blows because a "differentiation" was formed, and then just like in chemistry and physics....cold air moves towards warm air and vice versa by virtue of diffusivity from one state different than the other - it is as if they want to be unified again, but we all know that is impossible because there is no going back to the beginning. Or at least that is what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics puts forth if memory serves - something about entropy - which by the way, I think that is another law flawed!
Personally, I think the wind was blowing before philosophy was even imagined in the mind of a man or a women.
All truth is circular on a certain level. Tautologies form the basis of logic, for instance. I think you're correct, temporally - the wind came before philosophy. But the "eternal law" (as described in the post) is logically prior to any wind, as a potential. They're both equally important, IMO - the unrealized future, and the realized present.
The unrealized future and the realized present - they must be connected Harrison.
So if recognition of the present is honest, is not the sky the limit for the future? I hope so and this idea came to me when I was toiling and sensed a wind from the east.
I think it is hopeful to contemplate unrealized future and I think just like propaganda can be so powerful to sway views, so can better ideas about potential future better, so I have HOPE!
Excellent piece. I recommend two good books on this topic (in addition to The Theory of Moral Sentiments which I always recommend for ever :) )
Natural Law and the Theory of Property: Grotius to Hume by Stephen Buckle. Bit of a slog at times, but really covers the transition from earlier natural law to the late medieval/renaissance Lockean period.
Law, Legislation and Liberty by FA Hayek, goes a lot into the difference between law and legislation, the former more like natural law (along with norma) and the latter “that crap the government tries to enforce”.
More books to add to the stack! Thanks, Doc.
Words for the word god! Books for the book throne!
One reason why the legal professions, and judges in particular, need an in-depth education in classical humanities if their jobs are to make any sense. We can witness what happens if that's not the case. Great job Harrison sussing out the contradictions that modern philosophical positions produce with respect to law.
This is one of the best things you've ever written. And that’s a very high bar. Will comment in depth later, and will also crosspost/recommend.
That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Thanks, Mark!
Fascinating reading for someone who didn’t go to university to study philosophy or anything else for that matter yet you write in such a clear down to earth way you make it very easy to understand what you are meaning. I find philosophy to be a deep complex and engrossing area of study which opens the mind and for those of you also familiar with it like Harrison, your knowledge in this area must be very helpful in understanding why the world appears to have suddenly gone mad!
I take some comfort in your words that humanity has survived thus far but only because the evil that exists is in parts of the world and not the entire world.
When you describe our whole world where IF everything goes against our evolution our learned experience our innate human nature our instincts and natural law and God is forsaken feels to me exactly what the globalists have planned for our whole world and everyone in it and if they are successful humanity won’t survive.
From all of the many different subjects that you have studied as well as all of the different subject areas that your subscribers have studied, as reading through all of the comments you all sound like you’re on the same page intellectually, how can we the people affect change sufficiently to at least alter if not able to entirely prevent their plans for all of our destruction?
//...feels to me exactly what the globalists have planned for our whole world and everyone in it and if they are successful humanity won’t survive.//
Yeah, that does seem like a distinct possibility. But there's a hope in that even though this is what they want, it's difficult to deny reality so hard that what they want will stick. It's very easy to miscalculate in such a situation.
//how can we the people affect change sufficiently to at least alter if not able to entirely prevent their plans for all of our destruction?//
That's a tough one. I think the best we can do at this point is just share knowledge in the hopes that as many as possible can be prepared to see through the lies and manipulations. And then, take the forest passage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdme9Eta2hg&pp=ygULbWluZG1hdHRlcnM%3D
Thank you Harrison… I appreciate your efforts to enlighten me and for this link you posted that I just watched which brings more enlightenment with the great insights and the thoughtful discussions with Luc and the others reflecting on taking the forest passage. I think buying and reading this book will be a helpful guide with how to adapt to today’s tumultuous times. I was feeling paralyzed by my fear but now I see that plays right into their hands so I must stop being so reactive and I mustn’t focus so on the culture wars but recognize the big picture of what is taking place with totalitarianism taking hold and steel myself for it with a quiet resistance to the best of my ability at this stage of my life where I no longer feel young and competent but older and more vulnerable anyway even without any of this now occurring! Thanks for taking this time for me.. I am gaining an appreciation and understanding of the benefits of looking at various philosophies where I can now recognize some of the differences between them and even recognize them in real life in today’s lax law systems. Boy have you opened up a whole new world for me introducing the subject of philosophy which does aid one in understanding better what we are all experiencing in the West.
Yep, do check out the Forest Passage! It's short, and deep, and I think it will help you find more of that strength within you to conquer the fear. I know it helped me!
Thankyou for this. I am in full agreement as a natural man.
What I saw a while back was a comment about the hierarchy of man and law and that all governments are created by man to protect the property of man.
Our trust has been misplaced and subverted. I would argue it was intentionally done by the intellectual elite in order to please the aristocracy who were seeking rent or favour from the Royalty or Monarchy in return for their loyalty.
Magnificent, clear writing with profound implications . Real discernment and distinction, practical and something that good people need to think deeply upon. Then try to live out, to counter the mechanistic evil that threatens to engulf all that's good.
Thanks Harrison! I will check it out and if it helped you that’s about the best endorsement for Forest Passage there is! The covid fear campaigns were enough to last a lifetime and now witnessing millions of deaths completely ignored by the msm and governments feels surreal. Witnessing all of the totalitarian measures creeping in everywhere in the entire western world IS frigging scary but if we can only wake up enough people to see the end goal is for the elites to have complete and total control of the global population we might survive this massive global takeover!
Interesting piece, thanks for writing.
I'm unconvinced by the non-materialist position though, and I can't see a way to incorporate non-materialism into an intelligible account of the universe without leading to incoherence. Materialism, at least by my lights, doesn't necessitate a rejection of teleological thinking. I would argue they are complimentary.
We should be careful when trying to justify a metaphysics based on what we want the ethical outcomes to be (eg Natural Law, etc). This is motivated reasoning and will lead us astray.
Just because we are meat machines at the end of the day doesn't mean beauty, goodness, truth, justice, etc are meaningless.
If there's a teleological materialism that accounts for real beauty, goodness, truth, and justice, I'm all for it. I think Thomas Nagel's work in Mind and Cosmos might fit that name. He proposed something like a natural teleology. I'd just add that many materialist philosophers do explicitly reject any form of teleological thinking, so we'll need to do something about that. But I'm glad that some, like you, find them complementary. That gives me some hope!
Also, on motivated reasoning and justifying pre-existing ethical outcomes, that may the a common phenomenon, but it isn't necessarily part of the natural law. NL would say that there exist objective standards, but that we may not know what they are. It is a matter of practical reason to determine what they are, what works and what doesn't, but it doesn't necessarily start with set judgments in place.
I think Dennett makes a good attempt at charting a basically materialist worldview that preserves teleology in From Bacteria To Bach and Back. Perhaps you've read it already? The Audible version is good for what it's worth.
Nope. Not a big fan of Dennett, but I might have to check it out! Thanks for the recommendation, Martin.
This is a very good article. It speaks well to a much of my thoughts, especially how morality is self inherent through reflection, and while religion points the way towards morality, in no way is it a prerequisite for understanding the value inherent in practicing moral behavior or developing virtue.
Magnificent, clear writing with profound implications . Real discernment and distinction, practical and something that good people need to think deeply upon. Then try to live out, to counter the mechanistic evil that threatens to engulf all that's good.
This is the key undefended sentence: “Rather, the elements are as they are precisely so that such possibilities could be realized. All of this is is an expression of the ‘eternal law.’”
Why think that this sentence is more likely than not to be true? Yes, it would feel really nice if it were true. Perhaps that people believe it even makes the world better. But neither of those considerations is relevant.
In this piece you did a passable job of characterizing your opponent (albeit in the most tendentious possible tone), but you failed to defend your point of view at the key moment. To convince a rational person, you need to provide an argument with the quoted bit as a conclusion rather than mere assertion.
The materialists have all sorts of arguments, the causal closure of physical reality being the foremost. There’s no theoretical need to posit anything else. We can explain physical reality without teleology. Or at least without the sort of teleology you seem to posit.
If you’re actually interested in this, look into the philosophy of the fine-tuning problem. For life to be possible, certain constants of physics had to be within a very narrow range. This seems arbitrary. Some people like to posit a designer to explain this phenomenon.
//This is the key undefended sentence: “Rather, the elements are as they are precisely so that such possibilities could be realized. All of this is is an expression of the ‘eternal law.’”
Why think that this sentence is more likely than not to be true? //
Because if it weren't true, everything else that emerges within reality would be both meaningless and at the same time miraculous, which is absurd. On the one hand you have the coincidence theory where physics just so happens to support chemistry, which just so happens to allow for biochemicals, which just so happen to be able to be arranged in such a way to support biological forms (the organization of which is highly arbitrary and just so happens to be able to support molecular machinery which can produce and maintain such structures), which just so happen to be able to develop consciousness (which did not previously exist), which just so happens to be able to comprehend all of this. And on the other hand, you have the position that rationality is a fundamental part of the cosmos. Why anyone would think the former more likely than the latter is a mystery to me.
//Yes, it would feel really nice if it were true. Perhaps that people believe it even makes the world better. But neither of those considerations is relevant.//
Not necessarily nicer or better - but certainly more rational.
//In this piece you did a passable job of characterizing your opponent (albeit in the most tendentious possible tone), but you failed to defend your point of view at the key moment. To convince a rational person, you need to provide an argument with the quoted bit as a conclusion rather than mere assertion.//
If by hyperrational left-hemisphere-dominant schizo-autists, then yeah, agreed!
//The materialists have all sorts of arguments, the causal closure of physical reality being the foremost. There’s no theoretical need to posit anything else.//
I disagree. Causal closure does not explain the very concept and reality-status of a "theoretical need" in the first place. For that you need a theory that accounts for mind itself, and all the materialistic options on the table are laughably inept.
//We can explain physical reality without teleology. Or at least without the sort of teleology you seem to posit.//
We can *approach* a different teleology like that, but it will look something like Nagel's. And Nagel himself struggled to even imagine how it would work without a cosmic mind. His reason: because he doesn't *like* the idea of a cosmic mind. How very rational!
//If you’re actually interested in this, look into the philosophy of the fine-tuning problem. For life to be possible, certain constants of physics had to be within a very narrow range. This seems arbitrary. Some people like to posit a designer to explain this phenomenon.//
I'm aware of it.
NEO-HELLENISM... one of them invented a steam engine 2000 years ago.
The god of the abrahamics is Zeus
It is refreshing to see anyone make an assertion like this these days.
Of course, my studies have led me to significantly different conclusions about all these questions.
The use of Spiritual Memory has opened up a very different story about Mankind and God. Taking many of these questions off Earth to our precursor civilizations that are easily billions of years old, we can see everything that has happened here as a reenactment - or under the influence - of earlier traditions that were developed by beings more "advanced" than ourselves in the very deep past.
Thank HK. Erudite & mind expanding post.
This post is kind of interesting, but what I can't fathom is how this argues against materialism or that we are not machines. Did your thought just drift from the subject as you wrote?
I didn't spell it out explicitly, but the entire teleological worldview, on which the article is premised, is not materialistic. Materialism doesn't acknowledge the existence or efficacy of formal or final causes or objective moral values. That means no purposes, no anticipation of higher levels of informational complexity or organization. All of that is accidental. Including reason. With any luck, some materialists might read this article, agree that it makes sense, and come to the startling realization that they are not in fact materialists.
I would like be on your team, materialism is hopeless and it sucks, and who knows, maybe I just fail to understand your point, but I don't see anything like a refutation. Materialism took over in science because of its utility as a model. As the realm of what science can explain expanded, materialism started to seep into the general culture. There are prominent white spots, like consciousness and the origin of the universe, but does it really refute materialism?
Are layers of complexity that we can observe in the universe and our own makeup point at something better than materialism, that we are more than animals suffering from overdevelopment of cognitive faculties? If so, I sure don't see how. If we weren't complex enough we wouldn't be able to ask these questions in the first place, see anthropic principle.
What else? Oh, the final section about natural law - does it really challenge materialism? morality and law could emerge from our basic nature (though it should be evident that we are never reaching wide consensus as to what exactly objective morality entails) but what of it if it's the nature of an animal, meat machine?
I feel like you don't really engage with materialistic framework here.
//I would like be on your team, materialism is hopeless and it sucks, and who knows, maybe I just fail to understand your point, but I don't see anything like a refutation. //
Yep, a full refutation would take a book. My intent was only to introduce aspects of an alternative in this post.
//Materialism took over in science because of its utility as a model.//
Specifically as a result of its utility as a model for so-called *physical* reality. Yet the great physicists were mostly not materialists (Pauli, Einstein, Planck). But even then, I'd say that wasn't the main reason it took over - it just helped. The ground had already been set in motion by Descartes, who provided the dualist framework in which to separate res cogitans and res extensa. By limiting reality to the latter, philosophy cut off any coherent place for the real existence of things like logic (the rules of which are nonphysical) and consciousness/experience (which cannot be explained or understood in terms of quantities).
//As the realm of what science can explain expanded, materialism started to seep into the general culture. There are prominent white spots, like consciousness and the origin of the universe, but does it really refute materialism?//
In any meaningful sense, yes. All materialistic accounts of consciousness fail. For a starter, I'd recommend checking out David Ray Griffin's book, Unsnarling the World-Knot.
//Are layers of complexity that we can observe in the universe and our own makeup point at something better than materialism, that we are more than animals suffering from overdevelopment of cognitive faculties? If so, I sure don't see how. If we weren't complex enough we wouldn't be able to ask these questions in the first place, see anthropic principle.//
Complexity is different than consciousness, for one. An organism can hypothetically be complex without consciousness. Complexity may be associated with it, but it cannot be understood in terms of complexity. As for the anthropic principle, I see that as hand-waving. It's not an explanation. Here's Langan on that question, for example:
"The initial (weak) version, the Weak Anthropic Principle or WAP, begins with the trivial if somewhat Bayesian point that our cosmological observations of the universe reveal a capacity for life “because” a life-bearing universe is the only kind of universe in which there are living beings able to make cosmological observations. But while this seems to imply that there exists a domain of many universes in which such a universe can be passively distinguished by the circumstantial constraint that it contain living observers, the WAP offers no ready explanation for such a domain. Indeed, to those not convinced of its virtues, the WAP almost seems to add an unnecessary dose of explanatory red ink to the cosmological ledger."
//What else? Oh, the final section about natural law - does it really challenge materialism? morality and law could emerge from our basic nature (though it should be evident that we are never reaching wide consensus as to what exactly objective morality entails) but what of it if it's the nature of an animal, meat machine?//
Teleology as real is the challenge to materialism. If you accept things have real purposes, that goals are real and not just illusions, you can't be a card-carrying materialist. There's no such thing as a meat machine - that's the point. Even animals have purposes and engage creatively with their environments. Alongside Griffin, I'd also recommend Iain McGilchrist's The Matter with Things (and maybe some of Sheldrake's books).
As for morality emerging, it wouldn't be morality, merely species-specific behaviors devoid of purpose or any degree of self-awareness (and even then, I'd argue that would require a non-material reality to the possibilities thus actualized, but that's another story). A true morality on the most basic level, IMO, says that there is an objective criterion for something being better than something else. Criteria are not and cannot be material. Any such standard implies the real existence of a rational mind.
I guess that's it for me for now, I can't engage much further because I haven't thought about the subject from this angle, or maybe I just don't understand it at all still. Can't say I'm remotely convinced, but that's at least some food for thought. I will look at these books some time
Well, I tried to "like" it but I'm not sure my "like" took, but I'm not sure law and philosophy really mix well. One is real world deliberations while the other by definition is of the mind.
One would hope the two could meet together, but lately seems like philosophy has become a school only a few......ah forget it.
I tried to "like it" so there ought be 4 likes now, but whether there are or not, I know this.
If this posts - there will be 4 comments.
Living real time is the best way to live and philosophy is wonderful for those who got the time to think about this and that and lately the law seems to be nothing but corrupt - at least in the "west".
I can prove this is the 4th comment - I already have. But I don't think my "like" has shown up yet, but oh well - eff it I reckon.
Here's how I think they mix. All science, for example, has an underlying philosophy. Oftentimes it is implicit and not openly acknowledged. There is "philosophy of law" which attempts to understand what the law is, what are its justifications, how we can know it, etc. Ethics is practical philosophy. So, with just a little bit of philosophical awareness, science, law, and ways of living can all be examples of practical philosophy.
Hey - I'm just engaging in discourse here out of appreciation and by the way, my "like" just took - it was the 20th. Even though it ought to have been the 4th, but whatever, one like is as good as the next I reckon.
Of course everything has an underlying "philosophy" I say with respect, but to even have a philosophy suggest there must be a mind to think it.....and for me, the wind from the east has appeal - it resonates. Whereas, the winds of ideas form the past I think are diminishing.
No worries! I think some of the ideas of the past are worth reinvigorating. Maybe they could use some inspiration from the east, too.
Is there a law of philosophy may I inquire?
Not trying to be flippant, but is there science behind the law including the law of philosophy?
This is why I think semantics are not trivial and I also think there is a law to everything including philosophy and including uncertainty for that matter. I suspect this law precedes philosophy, the concept of it, but that is subjective of course.
Semantics are important and without better communication nothing is gonna get better is what I think.
Philosophy is like dreaming about clouds as the wind blows over.
BK
Logic would be one. Philosophy can be many things, but illogical is not one of them.
Philosophy is like understanding why the wind blows, and what must be true about the world such that the wind can blow and humans can experience and understand it.
Can't argue with that but it is a tad circular.....I mean what comes first - philosophy or the wind that blows?
I'd put forth, that the wind blows because a "differentiation" was formed, and then just like in chemistry and physics....cold air moves towards warm air and vice versa by virtue of diffusivity from one state different than the other - it is as if they want to be unified again, but we all know that is impossible because there is no going back to the beginning. Or at least that is what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics puts forth if memory serves - something about entropy - which by the way, I think that is another law flawed!
Personally, I think the wind was blowing before philosophy was even imagined in the mind of a man or a women.
All truth is circular on a certain level. Tautologies form the basis of logic, for instance. I think you're correct, temporally - the wind came before philosophy. But the "eternal law" (as described in the post) is logically prior to any wind, as a potential. They're both equally important, IMO - the unrealized future, and the realized present.
The unrealized future and the realized present - they must be connected Harrison.
So if recognition of the present is honest, is not the sky the limit for the future? I hope so and this idea came to me when I was toiling and sensed a wind from the east.
I think it is hopeful to contemplate unrealized future and I think just like propaganda can be so powerful to sway views, so can better ideas about potential future better, so I have HOPE!
I have hope in the human spirit as well!
BK
We can learn from the past, and not repeat the same mistakes yet we don’t.