ChatterBank4 mins ago
Private Truths
46 Answers
In an essay, only recently published, entitled 'The Validity of Artificial Distinctions' written in 1915 at Oxford, the young T.S.Eliot wrote;
"... any philosophic explanation which involves the taking over of a term or terms from daily use and disposing the rest of reality according to them - and this is a procedure which enters inevitably into every philosophic progress - is an explanation which is lamentably deficient.
You not only cannot prove your result: you cannot within the rights of your own conscience impose it upon your neighbour. It can only be maintained by faith, a faith which like all faith, should be seasoned with a sauce of scepticism. And scepticism too is a faith, a high and difficult one."
Would it not be beneficial to discussion if all R&S, ABers of whatever leaning and conviction, considered these words before posting?
"... any philosophic explanation which involves the taking over of a term or terms from daily use and disposing the rest of reality according to them - and this is a procedure which enters inevitably into every philosophic progress - is an explanation which is lamentably deficient.
You not only cannot prove your result: you cannot within the rights of your own conscience impose it upon your neighbour. It can only be maintained by faith, a faith which like all faith, should be seasoned with a sauce of scepticism. And scepticism too is a faith, a high and difficult one."
Would it not be beneficial to discussion if all R&S, ABers of whatever leaning and conviction, considered these words before posting?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance."
............. Bertrand Russell
Read more at http://
............. Bertrand Russell
Read more at http://
Good quote Builder.
OG; Risking flattery, I don't think it applies to you, as your posts seem consistently measured :0) but as the title suggests, truth can be private and remain significantly valid whether or not it can be substantiated to meet the values of another body's equally true beliefs, but both should also be "seasoned with scepticism".
woofgang; I don't think this need eliminate discussion or fun.
OG; Risking flattery, I don't think it applies to you, as your posts seem consistently measured :0) but as the title suggests, truth can be private and remain significantly valid whether or not it can be substantiated to meet the values of another body's equally true beliefs, but both should also be "seasoned with scepticism".
woofgang; I don't think this need eliminate discussion or fun.
beso - //Private truths are fine. However they are no longer private once published.
I don't have a problem with the expression of religious beliefs but I do reject the notion that they deserve respect and an opportunity to be expressed without inviting criticism. //
I agree entirely.
Religion can only survive and thrive by gaining adherants, which necessitates the 'spreading of the word'.
When that is done by individuals like goodlife, it sucks any and all potential attraction out of the concept by continually peddling complex and joyless tracts of ancient text, and a confirmed refusal to enter into anything approaching a debate.
My problem - as I have opined many times on here, with Christianity is less about Christianity, and more about Christians.
This pained patience they display, as they deal with poor me who lacks what they claim to have, and which I apparently need right now, makes me want to hit something repeatedly until my anger at their sanctimonious piety subsides.
Clue - as Billy Connolly memorably pointed out, you can flag a life-sapping sermon coming your way if it prefaced by the phrase "And ... y'know ..." - at which point it is wise to find an appointment, preferably in another galaxy!
I don't have a problem with the expression of religious beliefs but I do reject the notion that they deserve respect and an opportunity to be expressed without inviting criticism. //
I agree entirely.
Religion can only survive and thrive by gaining adherants, which necessitates the 'spreading of the word'.
When that is done by individuals like goodlife, it sucks any and all potential attraction out of the concept by continually peddling complex and joyless tracts of ancient text, and a confirmed refusal to enter into anything approaching a debate.
My problem - as I have opined many times on here, with Christianity is less about Christianity, and more about Christians.
This pained patience they display, as they deal with poor me who lacks what they claim to have, and which I apparently need right now, makes me want to hit something repeatedly until my anger at their sanctimonious piety subsides.
Clue - as Billy Connolly memorably pointed out, you can flag a life-sapping sermon coming your way if it prefaced by the phrase "And ... y'know ..." - at which point it is wise to find an appointment, preferably in another galaxy!
Ah, I see the connection:
http://
Going to have to struggle through this in order to anwser my and OG's question.
Pedants' Corner: adherent.
http://
Going to have to struggle through this in order to anwser my and OG's question.
Pedants' Corner: adherent.
v_e; I don't do 'Idiots Guides'. Eliot may be sometimes opaque in his poetry (he claimed once he didn't always understand it himself!) but I can't see how a man of your calibre can't understand what he is saying. Thank you for the (unknown) link written 1985 when these essays, now published online by The John Hopkins University Press and Faber on 'Project Muse', were unknown.
I think he anticipated Popper's Uncertainty or falsification theory.
I would also expect you to see the connection to many R&S threads.
I think he anticipated Popper's Uncertainty or falsification theory.
I would also expect you to see the connection to many R&S threads.
-- answer removed --
Hypo;//Are you saying that the theists should be more sceptical about what they believe, before they post?//
What I believe he[i is saying is that [i]all] metaphysical beliefs (and disbeliefs) held as truths are artificial (though some may be truer than others) and are "private" theories and should be tempered with a degree of scepticism. When we believe in a system there is no "theory" we are "inside it" and the theory is the reality, it is easy to be sceptical of another's belief, but we should be aware that it is based on a faith similar to our own.
As to Birdie's point; I'm not sure what he means and he doesn't return to it, not in that essay at least, perhaps he means scepticism can often be hubristic and we should be sceptical of scepticism itself.
What I believe he[i is saying is that [i]all] metaphysical beliefs (and disbeliefs) held as truths are artificial (though some may be truer than others) and are "private" theories and should be tempered with a degree of scepticism. When we believe in a system there is no "theory" we are "inside it" and the theory is the reality, it is easy to be sceptical of another's belief, but we should be aware that it is based on a faith similar to our own.
As to Birdie's point; I'm not sure what he means and he doesn't return to it, not in that essay at least, perhaps he means scepticism can often be hubristic and we should be sceptical of scepticism itself.
