Cheerskep Re: ' Ordinary, healthy folk would say the structure in Paris we call 'The Eiffel Tower' is "real", while Santa Claus's house and factory at the North Pole are not "real".'
I know I am just commenting on one bit of your post - and am often told this is one of my besetting sins - but this bit in particular caught my eye. Santa Claus's house etc are real in one world, aren't they? - the world of little children's fantasy. In that world it would be quite wrong to deny their existence. This is not as trivial a comment as it seems. The Eiffel Tower is real in a kind of impersonal, everyday world. Sin is real in a religious world. Art is real for those who have encountered it (and just an empty, somewhat pretentious, word for those who have not.) . What I am getting at is you seem to be very preoccupied by a distinction between things that are real because they name something 'out there' and things that do not name anything 'out there' - and, I gather, are not real? - or not really real? (I am not sure about this.) I would rather think about *the contexts* in which things are real, not whether they name something 'out there' - an idea that puzzles me anyway. Someone might say this will lead us down a perilous path to 'relativism' but I think that is alarmist. (More of that anon if needed.) DA On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 9:08 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Derek writes: > > "Actually for someone who really believed in sin - a deeply religious > person > for example - I imagine it would be as real as the Eiffel Tower. More real > perhaps. The Eiffel Tower is a neutral entity that they can ignore if they > like. > Not so with sin. So whether sin is 'out there' or not (and I'm not > sure where 'there' is) is probably of secondary importance from their > point > of view, don't you think?" > > "Of course we can say they are 'deluded' and there is no sin. But that is > just our way of looking at things, isn't it? If I were a Christian I > would very > probably believe in sin (I'm not entirely sure what I might mean by it), > and > someone telling me it was in some way not real because I was treating it > as a > '"real thing" out there,' would, I suspect, cut very little ice with me. > > "Am I missing the point. (I ask in the light of your comment that I have > traits that 'handicap me in philosophy'.)" > > The truth is, Derek, though first glance may not reveal it, a closer look > at > the posting reveals ambiguities, and apparent inconsistencies. It seems to > be > asking different questions while thinking they are the same. > > I'll try to explain why I say that, though I suspect that you and any of > the > passing internet traffic that pauses here to window-shop will be made > briefly > aghast by such tedious hairsplitting and the thought that anyone could, > seemingly, delight in doing it. > > First, I'd recommend the posting stress the distinction between the NOTION > and the "real" thing the notion is allegedly "of". People who have a > notion of > The Eiffel Tower recognize that their notion is one entity, and they > believe > there is also, in France, the real, non-notional entity. > > Second, notice the two possible reader-interpretations of "real". When you > say, "sin" could be more "real" to some people than "The Eiffel Tower", > I'd > guess what you have in mind is that the NOTION of "sin" is more constantly > with > them, more fearsome, more life-affecting than the notion of the Tower. I > used > 'real' earlier to take advantage of the kitchen-table sense of the word -- > "non-notional entity". Ordinary, healthy folk would say the structure in > Paris we > call 'The Eiffel Tower' is "real", while Santa Claus's house and factory > at the > North Pole are not "real". The trouble with my usage of 'real' is that > notions are also entities, albeit always a little hazy and constantly > morphing, so > they are also "real". > > Believers in "sin" believe there is an external-to-the-mind, non-notional > entity that "corresponds" to their notion -- and their word -- 'sin'. We > could > agree on where the non-notional Eiffel Tower is geographically, because > that > entity is a "physical" object, and we might conveniently agree that our > notions > are all "in" skulls. But I don't blame you for not being sure where > alleged > non-notional ABSTRACTIONS are supposed to be. Since I personally don't > believe in > the non-notional "existence" of any abstractions, their alleged "place of > residence" is not a problem for me. But I know I'll convince very few > listers > that abstractions like "meaning", "relations", "categories", "qualities", > "evil", > etc obtain solely in their minds. Regardless of what I think, I know > believers will remain convinced that there is a "real" non-notional entity > that their > notion "sin" "corresponds to", just as believers of other kinds feel sure > there "exist" non-notional entities called miracles, destiny, luck, the > "sacredness" of "holy" ground, angels, ghosts, and heaven and hell. > > Your line, " So whether sin is 'out there' or not is probably of secondary > importance from their point of view," has some problems. > > For one, it could be read as suggesting they don't care much if sin is > real > or not. But I'm fairly sure that's not what you had in mind. The "truth" > of > their belief is very important to them. If you asked them, "Would you care > if > in fact there is no such thing as sin?" they'd probably answer with the > likes > of, "I certainly would care, but it's not an issue because there's no > question > of sin's not existing, it DOES exist." We'll get back to this. > > The second problem is with the ambiguous word 'importance'. > > I think your idea was this: If they firmly BELIEVE in sin's NON-notional > existence, they will still feel and act the same way even if, unbeknownst > to them, > they are mistaken and "sin" is solely notional. Notice that I've replaced > the > word "importance" with 'feel and act the same', because that's one guess > at > what you have in mind as "of importance". > > For example, let's say someone firmly believes there is a fountain of > youth > in the jungles of Brazil. His struggle to get there will be exactly the > same > regardless of whether a non-notional fountain actually "exists" or not. > Let's > say a man reads his Bible, or his Koran, and this gives him the notion > that if > he lives a lifetime of avoiding sin he can expect in his afterlife the > rewards > of his conduct. If in fact there is no afterlife, this will not affect his > feelings and actions as he lives, provided he believes there is an > afterlife. > > Our beliefs, our feelings, our decisions to act, are all notional > entities. > Walls, germs, poisons, pizza, the sun, and many other non-notional > entities > impact in a direct, discernible, scientifically measurable way on our > bodies' > senses and thus on our noions, including how we feel and act: But it's the > very > nature of alleged non-notional entities like luck, destiny, sin, angels, > that > they don't afford us with any comparable way to test with surety whether > or not > there truly is a non-notional entity "out there". > > Many hard-headed folks feel scorn for "irrational, mystical" convictions > like > the belief that luck or fate or "miracleness" is making events occur, or > that > a patch of ground is "holy", or an act "has sin-ness". They want > "evidence",
