tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post4118816345816528123..comments2024-03-27T20:51:11.303-04:00Comments on Accepting Ignorance: Peterson's TruthAlrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-79510856599597780322017-02-09T11:24:22.005-05:002017-02-09T11:24:22.005-05:00I recently read Harris's Spirituality Without ...I recently read Harris's Spirituality Without Religion (I think that's the title)-- He tells us "you'll feel better if you realize that there's no you." Okay, then who's the "you" he's addressing, who's supposed to realize something and then feel better? (Same problem with Hume telling us to look for ourselves beneath our thought-stuff -- who's he addressing?) Harris repeatedly chides us for imagining that we're located behind our own eyes,riding around inside of our skulls. Well, sometimes I do imagine this but usually I don't. And I doubt that many people do this very frequently. Maybe most do sometimes, but some probably never do and most only rarely do. So if this is the big problem that he takes himself to be addressing ... "People, stop imagining that you're riding around inside of your own skulls!" ... he doesn't have to worry so much, because people actually aren't very inclined to imagine themselves in this way. It's interesting that he's inclined to imagine himself in this way, though -- shows that he's an imaginative person.Garrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-68898346085664467172017-02-05T01:37:18.435-05:002017-02-05T01:37:18.435-05:00I find it ironic that the words Harris uses closel...I find it ironic that the words Harris uses closely approximates the solution I found. <br /><br />Namely, consciousness can't be an illusion. What you think you're thinking is defined by what you're thinking. Law of identity. Hence at the very surface level you can be 100% sure of what's going on. Or: the Cogito generalizes.<br /><br />Problem being this implies the imagination is real and the 'real' 'physical' world is a figment of your imagination, and Harris' realism isn't looking too healthy.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-2879528372254253502017-02-04T19:23:13.843-05:002017-02-04T19:23:13.843-05:00Harris studied philosophy at Stanford with Richard...Harris studied philosophy at Stanford with Richard Rorty. Apparently, he used to "drive the man mad" with his "realism." <br /><br />In the End of Faith, he gives the standard philosophical argument againsts pragmatists that "pragmatic theories of truth" either collapse into realism, or face self-contradiction before they have even "laced up their boots." <br /><br />Harris is influenced by Thomas Nagel's View from Nowhere and the Last Word which I highly recommend. <br /><br />I think you're right about Greek Skepticism though; Sextus Empiricius has still not been refuted! What a scandal. <br /><br />See The Way of the Skeptic by Myles Burnyeat.<br /><br />Dark Reformation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com