2:54 "there's a link to Amazon." Was there a search engine, or a pedia website, called Amazon, back in the day of this lecture? (2000) It sounds vaguely familiar...
Just in case anyone is wondering, he delivers the same paper here. If you watch that and then come back here to minute 50:00 you get two Q&A's! ruclips.net/video/s3enH7ntOAM/видео.html
there's an interview of him in his backyard where's he's bird watching and tells a story about the waxwings eating fermented berries, becoming intoxicated and falling out of the trees. he smiled
God is an interim thought, however important or true it needs to be: it is useful to believe that God truly exists. Truth is below usefulness, in this view.
How is all that religious moralising and bleating about what are called morals or ejects,. which is what relation is, incompatible with science or the experimental method of having direct immediate personal experiences or knowledge which is what science is? Those that suppose thaty the psychological phenomenon that is religion - defined as any set of unquestioned beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms(all the bleating about morals/ethics that is the very essence of religion) necessarily hasanything to do with an idea of whatever god might be, simply do not understand that religion has nothing*necessarily* to do with whatever is meant by god and it is intellectually lazy or just sloppy mechanistic mentation to suppose that it does religion =god is simply wrong; religion=morals or all that normative morality/ethics monkey business- there is no need for god in that sort of monkey business, simple as that; it is a psychological phenomenon arising out of a conflict of sorts between two of the functions of which men(human beings) are the abject slaves. Scientism is clearly a form of religion but it generally manages to avoid of the moralising and handwringing but it clearly consists of *unquestioned* beliefs assumptions and presumptions even if it is not very normative but much is unthinkable for fully conditioned(they like to say educated but is conditioning) for the devout follower of scientism. Supposedly what is called science leads to direct immediate personal experience or knowledge which is what science means but it is rare to find a man claiming to be scientist that actually *knows*-as opposed to believes or just takes for granted, anything, for the simple reason that dreamers *cannot* know and they find direct immediate personal experience or real knowledge either frightening or unpalatable.
the problem with pragmatism, relativism, postmodernism et al is that they are all self refuting theories which are ultimately useless for any purpose. if there is no truth then how can the theory itself be true?
Pragmatism isn't skepticism, it's a way to recuperate skepticism so it isn't self-defeating in practical life. Don't lump pragmatism in with 'postmodernism et al' which isn't a helpful category in my opinion (and in Rorty's).
He is talking about an approach from the perspective of the scientific field with very little knowledge of religion and theology. But the person he describes is like a person who uses lysol or sunscreen without understanding what is in it or how or why it serves the purpose that it does, but it still works and they still achieve their end with it. But Christian faith is also a phenomenon as unique as its holder - because it is a relationship with the objectively pertinent and entirely rationally deduced First Cause of being/existence itself. It is based on such undeniable self-evident notions that in a most genersl manner, it is easily adopted by the most rational person, and lack of specifics does not prevent one from acknowledging the general reality of which the specifics are accidents of the whole. And some can be tentatively accepted by belief due to proofs and demonstrations that pertain both to historical fact and present phenomena(the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Eucharistic miracles, the shroud of Turin, the consistent heart tissue samples and blood type across all millennia of miracles, the coherent scientific data from the shroud and the tilma...) AND personal experience that connects the person to the previous two beyond the scope of one's own mind or another's manipulation to design or effect in the life of the believer. I have plenty of experience in all three of those, and can personally testify that the first exists. There is a complete failure here to be consistent because scientists who claim to be objective and make absolutist articulations about religion are claiming to be standing on solid ground precisely because they reject the idea that there is any solid ground(Truth with a capital T, a singular coherent, noncontradictory, unifying truth that coheres religion and natural science or finds religion to be incorrect and incoherent with scientific knowledge) and that religion and older philosophy and science and science are harmlessly false because they are absolutist in claiming to be on solid ground - for acknowledging Truth with a capital T, but harmless because they are limited to their isolated spheres of "Sunday" and the "work week", which have no consequences for their "objective" obligations to behave according to the collective demands on behavior dictated absolutely by the absolutists who deny any absolute Truth or ability to know it. This convoluted garbage is exactly why academics and politicians fail to deal effectively with the geopolitical nature of Islam, to identify Neomarxism as an organization - and now an active paramilitary - rather than a mere vaporous ideology, and normalize and justify hypocrisy and incoherence in their professions and in their lives. This is why corporations can develop as an apparatus that absorbs the effects of liability without ever being accountable or holding anyone responsible. This is why people can be educated as mere one-dimensional functionaries, parts in a machine, and are not formed as unique and capable individuals who develop every dimension of their person and abilities and find fulfillment and economic prosperity therein. That is why our economy has become a rigid and brittle structure, why our individuality is being destroyed by education even as it is preached by education. That is why our society is collapsing under the weight of immorality and therefore irresponsibility. Having no character or virtue - habits of excellence - leads to failure of excellence in what we do - make or provide. These failures are passed on to those who rely on the things we make and provide and do, and suffer the failure of integrity in them - causing a chain reaction of failures in every subsequent transfer of value and energy, making us unsustainable. See how important it is to know Truth with a capital T, to honor it(religion), to act according to it(morality and technology and economics), and to have gratitude for those who passed it to us translate into an obligation to sustain it for those who come after us. Get rid of capital T truth, get rid of religion, you get rid of civilization. All you have left is tribes fighting material scarcity to not die for as long as possible.
Pragmatists like Rorty believe in Truth, with a capital T. But to them, Truth is what's most useful, instead of what describes reality "most accurately". To a degree, most Americans already believe this.
There is a draft essay entitled "Is There a Conflict Between Religion and Science" in the UC Irvine archives (UCISpace), but access is restricted. This draft is dated 1996, so there is only a rough chance that the nature of the missing remarks may be determined from examination of the draft.
@@Brewmaster757 Excellent. Thank you. For those interested, the conclusion very clear in the recording Killman has pointed to. It is superior. The continuation may be found at time "39_01 But James by insisting that reality has no intrinsic nature to be respected is following up on the agapistic strain in christianity. In saying that our duty to truth amounts to the duty to respect the needs of those fellow creatures with whom we are involved in cooperative activities, pragmatists are following out the line of thought in christianity which says that love is the only law. I've given you this sketch of how pragmatism might appropriate christianity for its own purposes in order to reply to the suggestion that pragmatism is inherently atheistic and begs the question against religion. As I see it, the only question pragmatism begs is whether we are in a state of sin- whether we need to rely on something nonhuman for our salvation. Anyone who thinks the consciousness of sin is essential to religious faith will indeed have no use for James' and Dewey's way of reconciling science and religion. But for those who are willing to use the term religious faith to cover both a religion of obedient submission and a religion of love that their project of reconciliation may have some attractions. Thank you." . Rorty. What a guy.
@@SwarmerBees Here's an interesting thought courtesy of Humberto Maturana and Francesco Valera: The "fall" of Adam and Eve was essentially a moment when they became self-aware. Adam and Eve, after eating the fruit, understood not only their situation, but the situatedness of that situation; We are naked AND we know that we are naked AND we know that we know that we are naked AND, what's more, we understand this knowledge in the light of God's command and our disobedience to it. What is the sin in this? There's the disobeying of the command, for sure, but beyond this you might say that through Adam and Eve we got enough dynamite to blow ourselves up, but not quite enough to tunnel through to the other side of (oh damn. See what I mean?).
@@SwarmerBees "whether we need to rely on something nonhuman for our salvation." Our 'self' is not human. The self that enters the world is denied the opportunity to be it's own salvation. Every reasonable possibility is provided for, like a debutant ball. You're not even allowed the brief moment to recognise your self within your new environment, before a higher power delivers you to the buffet. But of course, that is how humans are created.
@@happinesstan The transcription I made of Rorty's words does not imply endorsement. I happen to be an observing christian (protestant). But I think you misunderstand the point of Rorty's remark. Rorty thinks that pragmatism and religion are not at all incompatible except in regard to one Christian doctrine. He believes the only friction is regarding the usual description of the nature of sin. As far as I can see, he would not see any friction with the doctrine you espoused in your note.
BEWARE I would really love to hear what he says between 43:20 - 47:11 when the audio disintegrates into an ant-like squelch. I felt like he was really trucking! Maybe I can find a transcript...
No one who adopts this attitude towards religion can ever have sincere religious belief. Rorty invokes Nietzsche, yet Nietzsche says "life is no argument." What's weird about this whole account is he takes for granted a "utilitarian" approach to belief, morality etc. as if utilitarianism constituted a genuine moral "discovery" that no one could seriously doubt, rather than a historical derivative of Christian ethics. Rorty juxtaposes "power" (bad) with "love" (good), yet without the deity's commands, utilitarian ethics is just whim. He seems to think that utilitarianism justifies Christian ethics rather than the other way round.
One test of Rorty. If he was alive in 1600 when the Catholic Church interrogated and executed Giordano Bruno, would he have sided with the Church or with Bruno's science? Doesn't his pragmatism allow the Church to claim that social stability requires the supremacy of its doctrine? Rorty might assert Bruno's individual rights as though this was self evident. But his pragmatism denies self-evidence because it denies evidence! --- at 57:08 "There's a famous sentence of Jefferson's worry says it does me no harm if my neighbor believes in twenty God's or no God. This utilitarian approach to religious belief gave rise to the American separation of church and state it seems to me the fundamentalists are saying the country should live in fear of the wrath of a powerful divine being whose representatives we are and we'll tell you when he's mad at you and when he isn't and you know you should fix politics so was to avoid his wrath. I regard this as on America and in the sense of [it is] antithetical to Jefferson's vision of America." Rorty is either ignorant or dishonest since Jefferson saw rights as rooted in natural laws. Jefferson said “our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” (The Portable Thomas Jefferson, p. 252). Jefferson went on: “is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in, and to make it an article of necessary faith.” He continued: “[I]t is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself” (The Portable Thomas Jefferson, p. 286). Rorty's pragmatism entails that Jefferson has no foundation to make such claims. Rorty has no foundation to appeal to Jefferson.
Interesting to listen to. It is obvious that some people glow in the dark and have been placed at their current position from forces which prefer to remain hidden. Anyways, let me tell you that there is no "objective" truth and why you should be a relativist. I hope that my non-argumentative arguments will lead you to venerate my thoughts, and ultimately to imitating my political position, for which I cannot argue philosophically, because I am a total relativist, just like in the old days of sophistry in ancient Athens.
That would be quite a terrible novel. How does an example undermine that he’s doing philosophy? If you look analytic philosophy, probably every famous argument uses an example. Every single piece of Wittgenstein after the tractatus, Gettier, Nagel, the Chinese room, who hasn’t tried to make things more concrete?
I wish more believers were as liberal as the “Professor Ryan” he invents. All the churches I attended growing up preached that anyone unsaved is going to hell, causing me (and others, I’m sure) great personal anxiety and encouraging a frenzied, urgent evangelism to save the souls of others. Even if you don’t believe that converting others is necessary, simply deciding in your mind that most people you interact with are destined to hell can profoundly diminish how you lovingly you treat them. It’s no wonder fundamentalists have no problem using their votes to deprive others of various rights to their own bodies, if all we are is a bunch of “sinners in the hands of an angry god.” Only the most liberal and generous interpretation of the Torah, Quran or Christian Bible would allow for Rorty’s pragmatism; so generous, in fact, that it would likely be deemed heretical by mainline believers. And that is a damn shame
the Quran doesn't say that we're all sinners. it's the exact opposite. we're all "not sinners" until we hit puberty and start to sin. it also says that those who never heard of Islam are called Ahl Al Fatra ( the people of the time/period ) and they believe that it the after life they'd be given a test.
I really thought I got outdone this time, and as usually the end of the lecture, that of answering any possible questions by the lecturer made that thought evaporate. At the very last question, with an answer being offered as relatable only to Asia/East , and not Europe/West. (People who know Asia more than me, will say often!!! There isn't anything in Asia like what we call philosophy, because they didn't have a conflict between religion and science.) This is part of the answer used, that I will focus on. The lecturer on the other hand alludes that in East, they did not have science, and it was only brought by the (imperial power's), making a conflict between religion and science not available, as it supposedly existed on the West. Because of such thinking (very wrong type), I will argue instead, in similar ways to the lecturer in saying and clearly stating that there is no conflict between religion and science, in any period available, by it recorded or not. And this be true for the whole planet. Not because of what anyone that is aiming to unify (or not) science and religion in anyway would argue, but for some other reasons and logic that in my thinking are simpler. Out of ten part's of science, nine of them are exactly the same as, out of ten part's of religion, nine of them being exactly the same with, (science and religion) with no conflict whatsoever between nine parts of science, out of ten, and nine parts of religion, out of ten. So much so that religion has developed science consciously or unconsciously since and before recorded period, and science as been along with religion consciously or unconsciously since before recorded period. Mathematics all of it, physics all of it, chemistry all of it, and biology all of it, has originated and is still supported (consciously or unconsciously), on structures of cultures, systems, and world civilization as a whole, made available only through religion, any form of religion. The only brief period, where religion was forced to be forgotten in relation to science, although it's structure could not, was that of the cold war ("communism"), and as soon as it was over, religion, it's nine parts out of ten, that are equal to the nine parts out of ten, of science, took it's rightful place along eachother. Why there is no conflict between religion and science, when ("supposedly") is often clearly argued, debated that there is?!?!? Because the nine out of ten part's of each, science and religion, both have the same structure!!! That of measures. Both science and religion have measures, in form's of theory, theorems, paradoxes, formula's, disciplines, categories, groups and logical methods for any this and any that, in relation to existence and as a consequence the whole universe. The supposed conflict, (between) is in relation to the measures used, which if even such conflicts were to be divided into ten part's for each! Nine parts out of ten for science and religion would be in no conflict whatsoever with each other, if looked in a very attentive details. What remains is the one part out of ten for religion, and the one part out of ten for science. And no one, in either supposed conflicting camp of science and religion, neither can, or has the capability to think, find, Invent, or even attempt to attribute it a measure, any measure, other then a allegorical one, similar to what I have used. Meaning the one out of ten part's of science, and the one part out of ten of religion that has no measure, and everyone from all sides is consciously and unconsciously clueless about it, is not in conflict whatsoever either! Because in order to have a conflict, any conflict, measures have to be clearly recognisable, and for a successful conflict, (defined). The ones that make money out of the supposed conflict between religion and science, are simply banner holders for either camp.
People's beliefs inform their actions. Their actions ultimately effect others. Consequently everyone has a responsibility to comport their beliefs to the best available evidence using the best available epistemology. Most religious belief is based on "faith" which is a bad epistemology and lacks supporting evidence.
You’ve already begged the question. What irreducible facts justify the claim that we should care about how are actions effect others? Moreover, you beg the question in the more colloquial sense of the phrase. How is it that conforming to the best evidence makes your actions have better effects on others than conforming to bad evidence? If someone takes the evidence that there is no god to justify that there’s no problem with killing people vs someone who takes it on faith god exists to justify that killing is objectively immoral. You seem to have listened for 5 minutes then commented or listened then just asserted your repeated your faith while completely ignoring evidence, the exact thing you attack. I’m never seen a statement with so many contradictions.
@@jasonvoorhees8899 I agree it's not objective but we can still talk about it. It's 'bad' to, for instance have your restaurant associated with something that would be bad marketing. But obviously no one would call that evil. I never understood the Dostoevsky argument. I suppose I would if I was born before the 19th century. How would god's rules be anything but his whims? If God said we should always sacrifice our first born, would that be good?
Religion would have been impossible without a superior understanding of the learnings that we now refer to as science. The religious leaders have relinquished their grip on the will of the individual, and now science is taking the baton back.
West valley College had the best philosophy program! Shout out to DJ Ciraulo - man turned souls towards the light
And this is why one should always hire a sound person!
William James's greatness is on full display here.
He is definitely smiling as he is drinking water, just before the any questions.
2:54 "there's a link to Amazon."
Was there a search engine, or a pedia website, called Amazon, back in the day of this lecture? (2000)
It sounds vaguely familiar...
It's the same Amazon. It was an online bookstore back then.
@@Pagat15 Oooooooo the more you know!
Had no idea Amazon went back that far.
Thanks for the reply!
Just in case anyone is wondering, he delivers the same paper here. If you watch that and then come back here to minute 50:00 you get two Q&A's!
ruclips.net/video/s3enH7ntOAM/видео.html
Has anyone ever seen Rorty smile?
there's an interview of him in his backyard where's he's bird watching and tells a story about the waxwings eating fermented berries, becoming intoxicated and falling out of the trees. he smiled
have you ever seen yourself smile?
he smiles intrinsically
There is a great picture of Rorty and his daughter- don't recall where I saw it. He is positively beaming.
@@spyology 😁
Can you separate religion and science??
could a religious person be no aligned with Religion because he or she is aligned with theology and its various Methods & Approaches.
I have!
Sounds so similar to Warren Buffett.
God is an interim thought, however important or true it needs to be: it is useful to believe that God truly exists. Truth is below usefulness, in this view.
If you think Pragmatists think "truth is below usefulness", you might need to do a basic Wikipedia search of Pragmatism.
How is all that religious moralising and bleating about what are called morals or ejects,. which is what relation is, incompatible with science or the experimental method of having direct immediate personal experiences or knowledge which is what science is?
Those that suppose thaty the psychological phenomenon that is religion - defined as any set of unquestioned beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms(all the bleating about morals/ethics that is the very essence of religion) necessarily hasanything to do with an idea of whatever god might be, simply do not understand that religion has nothing*necessarily* to do with whatever is meant by god and it is intellectually lazy or just sloppy mechanistic mentation to suppose that it does religion =god is simply wrong; religion=morals or all that normative morality/ethics monkey business- there is no need for god in that sort of monkey business, simple as that; it is a psychological phenomenon arising out of a conflict of sorts between two of the functions of which men(human beings) are the abject slaves. Scientism is clearly a form of religion but it generally manages to avoid of the moralising and handwringing but it clearly consists of *unquestioned* beliefs assumptions and presumptions even if it is not very normative but much is unthinkable for fully conditioned(they like to say educated but is conditioning) for the devout follower of scientism. Supposedly what is called science leads to direct immediate personal experience or knowledge which is what science means but it is rare to find a man claiming to be scientist that actually *knows*-as opposed to believes or just takes for granted, anything, for the simple reason that dreamers *cannot* know and they find direct immediate personal experience or real knowledge either frightening or unpalatable.
the problem with pragmatism, relativism, postmodernism et al is that they are all self refuting theories which are ultimately useless for any purpose. if there is no truth then how can the theory itself be true?
What do you mean by true?
I dont recall any of them saying theres no truth, pragmatists just reject the correspondence theory
Pragmatism isn't skepticism, it's a way to recuperate skepticism so it isn't self-defeating in practical life. Don't lump pragmatism in with 'postmodernism et al' which isn't a helpful category in my opinion (and in Rorty's).
@@EclecticSceptic I know that Rorty doesn't like it but nonetheless pragmatism and postmodernism are essentially the same theory.
He is talking about an approach from the perspective of the scientific field with very little knowledge of religion and theology. But the person he describes is like a person who uses lysol or sunscreen without understanding what is in it or how or why it serves the purpose that it does, but it still works and they still achieve their end with it.
But Christian faith is also a phenomenon as unique as its holder - because it is a relationship with the objectively pertinent and entirely rationally deduced First Cause of being/existence itself. It is based on such undeniable self-evident notions that in a most genersl manner, it is easily adopted by the most rational person, and lack of specifics does not prevent one from acknowledging the general reality of which the specifics are accidents of the whole.
And some can be tentatively accepted by belief due to proofs and demonstrations that pertain both to historical fact and present phenomena(the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Eucharistic miracles, the shroud of Turin, the consistent heart tissue samples and blood type across all millennia of miracles, the coherent scientific data from the shroud and the tilma...) AND personal experience that connects the person to the previous two beyond the scope of one's own mind or another's manipulation to design or effect in the life of the believer. I have plenty of experience in all three of those, and can personally testify that the first exists.
There is a complete failure here to be consistent because scientists who claim to be objective and make absolutist articulations about religion are claiming to be standing on solid ground precisely because they reject the idea that there is any solid ground(Truth with a capital T, a singular coherent, noncontradictory, unifying truth that coheres religion and natural science or finds religion to be incorrect and incoherent with scientific knowledge) and that religion and older philosophy and science and science are harmlessly false because they are absolutist in claiming to be on solid ground - for acknowledging Truth with a capital T, but harmless because they are limited to their isolated spheres of "Sunday" and the "work week", which have no consequences for their "objective" obligations to behave according to the collective demands on behavior dictated absolutely by the absolutists who deny any absolute Truth or ability to know it.
This convoluted garbage is exactly why academics and politicians fail to deal effectively with the geopolitical nature of Islam, to identify Neomarxism as an organization - and now an active paramilitary - rather than a mere vaporous ideology, and normalize and justify hypocrisy and incoherence in their professions and in their lives.
This is why corporations can develop as an apparatus that absorbs the effects of liability without ever being accountable or holding anyone responsible.
This is why people can be educated as mere one-dimensional functionaries, parts in a machine, and are not formed as unique and capable individuals who develop every dimension of their person and abilities and find fulfillment and economic prosperity therein.
That is why our economy has become a rigid and brittle structure, why our individuality is being destroyed by education even as it is preached by education.
That is why our society is collapsing under the weight of immorality and therefore irresponsibility. Having no character or virtue - habits of excellence - leads to failure of excellence in what we do - make or provide. These failures are passed on to those who rely on the things we make and provide and do, and suffer the failure of integrity in them - causing a chain reaction of failures in every subsequent transfer of value and energy, making us unsustainable.
See how important it is to know Truth with a capital T, to honor it(religion), to act according to it(morality and technology and economics), and to have gratitude for those who passed it to us translate into an obligation to sustain it for those who come after us.
Get rid of capital T truth, get rid of religion, you get rid of civilization. All you have left is tribes fighting material scarcity to not die for as long as possible.
Pragmatists like Rorty believe in Truth, with a capital T. But to them, Truth is what's most useful, instead of what describes reality "most accurately". To a degree, most Americans already believe this.
"Not everything worth knowing is rational."
Untrue
There's no conflict as religion is not a valid challenge. Science stands alone unopposed.
I would say that religion is more for the mentally and sceptically incapacitated by a priest/parent/peers in infancy so that they are easily led.
There is a draft essay entitled "Is There a Conflict Between Religion and Science" in the UC Irvine archives (UCISpace), but access is restricted. This draft is dated 1996, so there is only a rough chance that the nature of the missing remarks may be determined from examination of the draft.
ruclips.net/video/s3enH7ntOAM/видео.html
@@Brewmaster757 Excellent. Thank you.
For those interested, the conclusion very clear in the recording Killman has pointed to. It is superior. The continuation may be found at time "39_01 But James by insisting that reality has no intrinsic nature to be respected is following up on the agapistic strain in christianity. In saying that our duty to truth amounts to the duty to respect the needs of those fellow creatures with whom we are involved in cooperative activities, pragmatists are following out the line of thought in christianity which says that love is the only law. I've given you this sketch of how pragmatism might appropriate christianity for its own purposes in order to reply to the suggestion that pragmatism is inherently atheistic and begs the question against religion. As I see it, the only question pragmatism begs is whether we are in a state of sin- whether we need to rely on something nonhuman for our salvation. Anyone who thinks the consciousness of sin is essential to religious faith will indeed have no use for James' and Dewey's way of reconciling science and religion. But for those who are willing to use the term religious faith to cover both a religion of obedient submission and a religion of love that their project of reconciliation may have some attractions. Thank you."
.
Rorty. What a guy.
@@SwarmerBees Here's an interesting thought courtesy of Humberto Maturana and Francesco Valera: The "fall" of Adam and Eve was essentially a moment when they became self-aware. Adam and Eve, after eating the fruit, understood not only their situation, but the situatedness of that situation; We are naked AND we know that we are naked AND we know that we know that we are naked AND, what's more, we understand this knowledge in the light of God's command and our disobedience to it. What is the sin in this? There's the disobeying of the command, for sure, but beyond this you might say that through Adam and Eve we got enough dynamite to blow ourselves up, but not quite enough to tunnel through to the other side of (oh damn. See what I mean?).
@@SwarmerBees "whether we need to rely on something nonhuman for our salvation."
Our 'self' is not human. The self that enters the world is denied the opportunity to be it's own salvation. Every reasonable possibility is provided for, like a debutant ball. You're not even allowed the brief moment to recognise your self within your new environment, before a higher power delivers you to the buffet.
But of course, that is how humans are created.
@@happinesstan The transcription I made of Rorty's words does not imply endorsement. I happen to be an observing christian (protestant). But I think you misunderstand the point of Rorty's remark. Rorty thinks that pragmatism and religion are not at all incompatible except in regard to one Christian doctrine. He believes the only friction is regarding the usual description of the nature of sin. As far as I can see, he would not see any friction with the doctrine you espoused in your note.
BEWARE
I would really love to hear what he says between 43:20 - 47:11 when the audio disintegrates into an ant-like squelch. I felt like he was really trucking!
Maybe I can find a transcript...
John Williamson did you ever find the transcript?
@@tdreamer25 nope.
ruclips.net/video/s3enH7ntOAM/видео.html
kiliman The first distorted sentence in this video (starting at 43:27) begins at 39:12 in the video you linked. Thank you for posting.
The first distorted sentence in this video (starting at 43:27) begins at 39:12 in the video kiliman linked.
that feedback though
No one who adopts this attitude towards religion can ever have sincere religious belief. Rorty invokes Nietzsche, yet Nietzsche says "life is no argument." What's weird about this whole account is he takes for granted a "utilitarian" approach to belief, morality etc. as if utilitarianism constituted a genuine moral "discovery" that no one could seriously doubt, rather than a historical derivative of Christian ethics. Rorty juxtaposes "power" (bad) with "love" (good), yet without the deity's commands, utilitarian ethics is just whim. He seems to think that utilitarianism justifies Christian ethics rather than the other way round.
One test of Rorty. If he was alive in 1600 when the Catholic Church interrogated and executed Giordano Bruno, would he have sided with the Church or with Bruno's science?
Doesn't his pragmatism allow the Church to claim that social stability requires the supremacy of its doctrine?
Rorty might assert Bruno's individual rights as though this was self evident. But his pragmatism denies self-evidence because it denies evidence!
---
at 57:08 "There's a famous sentence of Jefferson's worry says it does me no harm if my neighbor believes in twenty God's or no God. This utilitarian approach to religious belief gave rise to the American separation of church and state it seems to me the fundamentalists are saying the country should live in fear of the wrath of a powerful divine being whose representatives we are and we'll tell you when he's mad at you and when he isn't and you know you should fix politics so was to avoid his wrath. I regard this as on America and in the sense of [it is] antithetical to Jefferson's vision of America."
Rorty is either ignorant or dishonest since Jefferson saw rights as rooted in natural laws. Jefferson said “our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” (The Portable Thomas Jefferson, p. 252). Jefferson went on: “is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in, and to make it an article of necessary faith.” He continued: “[I]t is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself” (The Portable Thomas Jefferson, p. 286).
Rorty's pragmatism entails that Jefferson has no foundation to make such claims. Rorty has no foundation to appeal to Jefferson.
It's like he's talking about Francis Colins lol
Short answer: yes. Name a single scientific explanation that was replaced by a religious one
Interesting to listen to. It is obvious that some people glow in the dark and have been placed at their current position from forces which prefer to remain hidden. Anyways, let me tell you that there is no "objective" truth and why you should be a relativist. I hope that my non-argumentative arguments will lead you to venerate my thoughts, and ultimately to imitating my political position, for which I cannot argue philosophically, because I am a total relativist, just like in the old days of sophistry in ancient Athens.
Rorty's opening looks more like the recitation of a novel than a philosophical presentation.
That would be quite a terrible novel. How does an example undermine that he’s doing philosophy? If you look analytic philosophy, probably every famous argument uses an example. Every single piece of Wittgenstein after the tractatus, Gettier, Nagel, the Chinese room, who hasn’t tried to make things more concrete?
I wish more believers were as liberal as the “Professor Ryan” he invents. All the churches I attended growing up preached that anyone unsaved is going to hell, causing me (and others, I’m sure) great personal anxiety and encouraging a frenzied, urgent evangelism to save the souls of others. Even if you don’t believe that converting others is necessary, simply deciding in your mind that most people you interact with are destined to hell can profoundly diminish how you lovingly you treat them. It’s no wonder fundamentalists have no problem using their votes to deprive others of various rights to their own bodies, if all we are is a bunch of “sinners in the hands of an angry god.” Only the most liberal and generous interpretation of the Torah, Quran or Christian Bible would allow for Rorty’s pragmatism; so generous, in fact, that it would likely be deemed heretical by mainline believers. And that is a damn shame
the Quran doesn't say that we're all sinners.
it's the exact opposite. we're all "not sinners" until we hit puberty and start to sin.
it also says that those who never heard of Islam are called Ahl Al Fatra ( the people of the time/period ) and they believe that it the after life they'd be given a test.
@@jasonvoorhees8899 F#$% your homicidal, infanticidal, sexist, nationalistic, violent garbage god.
Precisely, this is exactly how I see it as well
@@jasonvoorhees8899 So we're not born sinners, but everyone becomes sinners if they reach puberty. Not much of a distinction
@@fakeemail4005 they don't automatically become sinners.
It's just that they'll be responsible for their actions from now on.
The Varieties came about by William Jr's childhood anticipation of a Scottish tradition. Dewey lectured on the occasion. Who has spoken since?
The Audio gets really bad around 43:26
Top again🌹👏
Can someone translate this video to Spanish? Thanks!
Thank you a lot !
I really thought I got outdone this time, and as usually the end of the lecture, that of answering any possible questions by the lecturer made that thought evaporate.
At the very last question, with an answer being offered as relatable only to Asia/East , and not Europe/West.
(People who know Asia more than me, will say often!!! There isn't anything in Asia like what we call philosophy, because they didn't have a conflict between religion and science.)
This is part of the answer used, that I will focus on.
The lecturer on the other hand alludes that in East, they did not have science, and it was only brought by the (imperial power's), making a conflict between religion and science not available, as it supposedly existed on the West.
Because of such thinking (very wrong type), I will argue instead, in similar ways to the lecturer in saying and clearly stating that there is no conflict between religion and science, in any period available, by it recorded or not.
And this be true for the whole planet.
Not because of what anyone that is aiming to unify (or not) science and religion in anyway would argue, but for some other reasons and logic that in my thinking are simpler.
Out of ten part's of science, nine of them are exactly the same as, out of ten part's of religion, nine of them being exactly the same with, (science and religion) with no conflict whatsoever between nine parts of science, out of ten, and nine parts of religion, out of ten.
So much so that religion has developed science consciously or unconsciously since and before recorded period, and science as been along with religion consciously or unconsciously since before recorded period.
Mathematics all of it, physics all of it, chemistry all of it, and biology all of it, has originated and is still supported (consciously or unconsciously), on structures of cultures, systems, and world civilization as a whole, made available only through religion, any form of religion.
The only brief period, where religion was forced to be forgotten in relation to science, although it's structure could not, was that of the cold war ("communism"), and as soon as it was over, religion, it's nine parts out of ten, that are equal to the nine parts out of ten, of science, took it's rightful place along eachother.
Why there is no conflict between religion and science, when ("supposedly") is often clearly argued, debated that there is?!?!?
Because the nine out of ten part's of each, science and religion, both have the same structure!!!
That of measures.
Both science and religion have measures, in form's of theory, theorems, paradoxes, formula's, disciplines, categories, groups and logical methods for any this and any that, in relation to existence and as a consequence the whole universe.
The supposed conflict, (between) is in relation to the measures used, which if even such conflicts were to be divided into ten part's for each!
Nine parts out of ten for science and religion would be in no conflict whatsoever with each other, if looked in a very attentive details.
What remains is the one part out of ten for religion, and the one part out of ten for science.
And no one, in either supposed conflicting camp of science and religion, neither can, or has the capability to think, find, Invent, or even attempt to attribute it a measure, any measure, other then a allegorical one, similar to what I have used.
Meaning the one out of ten part's of science, and the one part out of ten of religion that has no measure, and everyone from all sides is consciously and unconsciously clueless about it, is not in conflict whatsoever either!
Because in order to have a conflict, any conflict, measures have to be clearly recognisable, and for a successful conflict, (defined).
The ones that make money out of the supposed conflict between religion and science, are simply banner holders for either camp.
People's beliefs inform their actions. Their actions ultimately effect others. Consequently everyone has a responsibility to comport their beliefs to the best available evidence using the best available epistemology. Most religious belief is based on "faith" which is a bad epistemology and lacks supporting evidence.
You’ve already begged the question. What irreducible facts justify the claim that we should care about how are actions effect others? Moreover, you beg the question in the more colloquial sense of the phrase. How is it that conforming to the best evidence makes your actions have better effects on others than conforming to bad evidence? If someone takes the evidence that there is no god to justify that there’s no problem with killing people vs someone who takes it on faith god exists to justify that killing is objectively immoral. You seem to have listened for 5 minutes then commented or listened then just asserted your repeated your faith while completely ignoring evidence, the exact thing you attack. I’m never seen a statement with so many contradictions.
@@slowpoke126 I still believe that if there is no god , then there is no right or wrong.
I,e there's no moral anchor.
@@jasonvoorhees8899 I agree it's not objective but we can still talk about it. It's 'bad' to, for instance have your restaurant associated with something that would be bad marketing. But obviously no one would call that evil.
I never understood the Dostoevsky argument. I suppose I would if I was born before the 19th century. How would god's rules be anything but his whims? If God said we should always sacrifice our first born, would that be good?
@@slowpoke126 What do you personally believe is the case? Do you think God exists? Also I like your comment on Rick Fetters on comment.
Religion would have been impossible without a superior understanding of the learnings that we now refer to as science. The religious leaders have relinquished their grip on the will of the individual, and now science is taking the baton back.
Heaven is real. I've been there.
Science does not think