Private Truths

[Khandro]

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?

[woofgang]

maybe but why spoil the fun?

[The Builder]

"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://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/skepticism.html#Cu6X9RocdOQqhMEZ.99

[Old_Geezer]

I'm getting to old for this type of thought.
Is there a simple idiot's guide translation of the OP ? Preferably with examples.

[Khandro]

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.

[mibn2cweus]

Answers to questions regarding 'what is' are only meaningful within the context of 'how we know it'. Communicating such knowledge is limited by our ability to relate through a mutual understanding of common experience.

Truth comes to us from without by questioning what lies within.

[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.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I agree with OG, Khandro. Can you give us an example of a "lamentably deficient" explanation, please?

[andy-hughes]

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!

[Khandro]

//Religion can only survive and thrive by gaining adherants, which necessitates the 'spreading of the word'.//
Not unlike any other belief system?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Ah, I see the connection:
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew33375.htm
Going to have to struggle through this in order to anwser my and OG's question.
Pedants' Corner: adherent.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Err, answer.

[Khandro]

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.

[Hypognosis]

@Khandro

Are you saying that the theists should be more sceptical about what they believe, before they post?

[naomi24]

Khandro's come over all enigmatic again.

[agchristie]

/@ birdie 1971

// At the obvious risk of questioning this renowned figure,///

I think you are entitled to, according to Khandro, Eliot has form in questioning himself!!

[Zacs-Master]

If you believe that Elliot was correct then his statement 'and this is a procedure which enters inevitably into every philosophic progress' cancels out having to think before posting, as the vast majority of R&S debates become a philosophical progress.

[Khandro]

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.

[beso]

// perhaps he means scepticism can often be hubristic and we should be sceptical of scepticism itself.//

I would be sceptical about scepticism of scepticism. ;)

[Canary42]

////And scepticism too is a faith, a high and difficult one.////

I can't agree with that. No wonder he thought it was high (whatever that means) and difficult.

He should have stuck to cats.