A Dialogue on Opposing Worldviews: A Set of Powerful Sparring Matches Between Two Imaginary Philosophers

By Joseph Shrock

This book comprises the fruits of much deep thinking for decades on the issues discussed. The book is very largely a summation of the author's philosophical reading, probing, analyzing, and creative thinking involved in critiquing much philosophical literature, and deeply contemplating the implications of all that reading and analyzing.

This philosophical work touches on a great variety of philosophical questions; however, the most diligent and persistent analyses revolve around questions concerning the nature of language (where reference and meaning reside), the nature of human (and animal) consciousness, and how it is that we human beings can know anything at all.

Studiosus and Scepticus are the two interlocutors (debaters) in this very lively discussion.
Throughout the book, they take aim at each other's worldview, and they passionately debate the pros and cons of each issue under the fires of critical analysis.

The debates sometimes get into great technical detail, but they never get dull, dry or pedantic. The intellectual passions of each debater see to it that the dialogue never gets unduly bogged down in tedious details and analyses. When Scepticus and Studiosus debate, it never gets dull for very long. However, they do come head-on concerning some very difficult and deep philosophical probing and analysis. Therefore, the reader should be prepared to do some critical thinking, even if this thinking can be kept colorful and exciting.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse
• Release date: Sep 24, 2012
• ISBN: 9781477259306

Joseph Shrock

Although the author is not a professional philosopher, and has "merely" a B.A. in philosophy, along with a near-completion of a B.A. in mathematics, he is passionate about the pursuit of philosophical knowledge. He has read very widely in philosophy -- including writings of Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, Ludwig Wittgenstein, A.J. Ayer, Augustine, Aquinas, William of Ockham, and many others. The author considers himself to be an amateur philosopher, mathematician, and writer, all of which converge into the sort of thinking required for qualification to write this sort of book.

Book preview

© 2012 Joseph Schrock. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 9/18/2012

ISBN: 978-1-4772-5931-3 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4772-5929-0 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-4772-5930-6 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012914759

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Contents

Preface

Chapter 1 

Introductory Discussions

Beer, Women, and Music

Language, Reality, and Knowledge

Chapter 2  

Discussions of a Developing Book on Epistemology and Language

A Philosophy of Language Must Reckon with Reality

Language as the Structure of Reality

Chapter 3  

The Nature of Meaning in Language

Chapter 4  

Reference – Where Does it Reside?

Chapter 5  

Consciousness and its Implications

The Intrinsic Contradiction in Denying the Reality of Consciousness

The Vacuity of Physicalism Regarding Consciousness

Chapter 6 

Physicalism Revisited

Is Physical Reality All there Is?

Are Paranormal Phenomena Credible?

Chapter 7 

Is Free will an Illusion?

What is Free Will?

Free Will is Logically Necessary for Any Viable Morality

Chapter 8 

Logic, Language, Truth, and Reality

Does Truth Exist?

Chapter 9 

Mathematical Reality

What is Mathematics?

Mathematical Nominalism, Realism, Social Constructivism, or Mysticism

Studiosus’ Mystical Tangent and Scepticus’ Disdain

Chapter 10 

Logic, Language, and Reality

What is Logic?

Language and its Logical Basis

Chapter 11 

Human Psychology and the Good Life

An Attempt to Define Psychology

What are Human Will and Human Motivation?

Is the Human Will Physical?

Chapter 12 

What is Truth?

Can We Define Truth?

Does Truth have a Spiritual Dimension?

Can Truth Relate to Spiritual Reality?

Chapter 13 

Atheism Versus Theism – Which Side Wins?

Is Atheism Justifiable?

Does Evil in the World Imply Evil in the Progenitor of the World?

Chapter 14 

Logic, Reality, Language, and Mathematics

What is Logic?

Logic and Language

Logic and Epistemology

Chapter 15  

Some Concluding Thoughts

About the Author

Preface

This book is very largely based upon thinking, analyzing, and reasoning that have been brewing in my mind for decades, and in the pages that follow, some of the most vital issues that any philosopher could well entertain are debated with intensity, sometimes with sarcasm, sometimes with in-depth rigor, and sometimes with considerable subtlety, but always with a serious respect for the interlocutor.

Let me make a few comments about the style of the following debates and the interlocutors who generate the debates. First of all, the very names of the two men who conduct the debate are, one might think, out of place. The names are based upon Latin words that mean approximately the following: Studiosus can be translated as eager, zealous, or studious. Scepticus can be basically just translated as skeptic.

One criticism that was mentioned regarding the manuscript was that, although the interlocutors have Latinized names, there are cases where Suzie, Doc, or such modern names are used in discussing hypothetical people. These latter names certainly don’t match well with Studiosus and Scepticus. However, this seems to me to be a trivial concern, and it is evident that most people who read the book will not be familiar with very many Latin names. Yet, I wished to use names that might suggest the perennial nature of the issues discussed – the same sorts of issues as were discussed in the Middle Ages, or even in more ancient Greek times. These issues have not been resolved, and they deserve serious concern and debate in modern and postmodern times.

Let me also make a comment about how highly casual the first chapter is compared to later deep philosophical discussions. The first chapter is no more than a casual, relaxed warm-up to the subsequent discussions. Therefore, the reader should certainly not suppose that this first (rather brief) chapter is suggestive of the nature of the entire book. Very deep, tedious, and difficult discussions will ensue from the first chapter.

The atmosphere of the discussions is generally casual, but don’t be fooled into thinking that the discussions are light. Most of them are emphatically not, but are deep, highly analytical, and rigorous – even if there’s been a serious effort toward avoiding, as much as is reasonable, dry, terse, and tedious philosophical discussions.

It is hoped that if this book does anything for the reader, it will at least impel him/her to challenge their own thinking and find discussions that demand challenging thought. Good philosophy should induce us to analyze what we believe, why we believe it, and also help us determine whether or not we are justified in believing it.

This book juxtaposes a highly liberal modern take on philosophy with a rather serious, realistic, and conservative worldview. If the reader concludes that Scepticus won the debates, then the message of the author will have been less than convincing, but if Studiosus is regarded as the winner, then the author can consider, for such a reader, a kind of victory. However, let it be clearly stated that the issues raised and the manner in which the debates are conducted constitute a serious effort to be genuinely fair-minded and objective, where the author’s personal biases come under serious fire and challenging analysis.

It is my sincere hope that there will be readers who can say of this book that it was a fascinating and challenging foray into the world of ideas, and that the reading of it was time well-spent.

Chapter 1 

Introductory Discussions

Beer, Women, and Music

Studiosus: Good evening, Scepticus.

Scepticus: Hello, Studiosus. It’ll become an even better evening after a few beers.

Studiosus: Yes, a few drinks can be relaxing to those of us who stretch our dendrites to the limit. Who would ever suggest that alcohol and intellect don’t mix well? However, I’ll confess that I ought not to focus on our supposed intellects. After all, the Originator of our universe must have intellect such as to render our human intellects – even those among us who are blessed with genius endowment – mere trivia, and unworthy of the note of even a moron.

Scepticus: Well, Studiosus, your views on the greatness of human accomplishment might tend to demean us – do you wish to render us insignificant, the creatures who might well possess the highest intelligence of any reality in the universe?

Studiosus: I do not wish to unduly demean us; however, you might remember that Einstein, the scientist par excellence of the 20th century, considered by many to be among the greatest geniuses that human conception has produced, declared that those who failed to stand in awe of the intelligence and mystery underlying the universe are as good as dead (I, of course, am paraphrasing).

Scepticus: Oh yes, Einstein was a bit inclined toward mysticism. Actually, when it comes to genius, I’d favor Bertrand Russell, whom I regard as the single greatest thinker produced by the 20th century.

Studiosus: Oh, you skeptics are always rallying behind each other – you represent those radicals who wish to doubt their very own existence.

Scepticus: Ah, Studiosus, why become so quickly acidic? Has the beer not been sufficiently mellowing of your hostilities?

Studiosus: You might have a point; after all, there are a few nice ladies here in our vicinity, even though some of them might give off an air of the banality of failed feminist ideologies.

Scepticus: You seem to like old-fashioned ladies – those with long, flowing hair, long dresses, and with meek and quiet spirits.

Studiosus: Well, Scepticus, you actually must have read (or heard) some scripture at some time or other. But really, I do like women who wish to be real women!

Scepticus: Now, just what do you mean by real women?

Studiosus: I refer to women who take joy and satisfaction in their femininity, rather than wishing to emulate men.

Scepticus: In other words, you want a woman who is willing to sit at home, take care of her kids, watch soap operas, and do house cleaning and cooking. Furthermore, I suppose that you wish for her to have no ambitions to use her intellect and potential for anything greater than home making – am I right?

Studiosus: No, you’re not right. What I refer to has deeper implications than mere occupation or career. It has to do with true femininity, and by that I refer to that mysterious quality of a woman who strongly values masculine powers in her man, and who is gratified in seeing her femininity accentuated and enhanced by her man. Furthermore, she takes satisfaction in using her feminine powers to empower her man – rendering to him that enchanting and mysterious quality for his inspiration and empowerment that only a true woman can ever offer. She also realizes that she needs his empowerment to be the best and greatest lady she can be.

Scepticus: You keep referring to mysterious qualities and something on the order of other-worldly mystical powers.

Studiosus: I think you’re misinterpreting my descriptions. The feminine mystique I refer to arises innately from a woman, when given opportunity and nourishment. Conversely, the man’s desire to provide for his lady the masculine features and powers that only a real man can provide will dovetail with her femininity, and this can give rise to a powerful and deeply rewarding bond.

Scepticus: But do female assertiveness and career ambitions militate against her femininity?

Studiosus: I would not claim that they so much militate against her femininity, so long as she takes the proper attitudes toward men, and realizes that men naturally love to dominate, to push, to initiate, and to lead a woman. Of course, I understand that the degrees of such traits will vary greatly from man to man; furthermore, his upbringing will come to powerfully bear on his identity and his self-image. However, in general, in the vast majority of normal cases, men are simply naturally more inclined toward dominance than women are. Just observe how women relate to each other; they tend to be more diplomatic in dealing with each other than is the case for men. Men assert, push, force, and demand – and the more masculine or manly (man-like) a man is, the more he tends to have those qualities. A strong man feels demeaned and humiliated by domination from a woman, and frankly, he will usually not tolerate that – but then, I said a strong man, one who is highly masculine, as opposed to the more effeminate type.

Scepticus: Studiosus, I believe that you qualify as a male chauvinist, and that type tends to be close-minded on issues of this sort. So, maybe we should have another beer, discuss music, or something where we can somewhat agree – after all, I’m convinced that feminism has a proper and healthy role to play in society, whereas you are virulently anti-feminist.

Studiosus: Okay, Scepticus, you accuse me of being close-minded, and presumably you’re the open-minded one; but you might have to concern yourself with such massive open-mindedness as will not allow any valuable knowledge, insight, or wisdom to remain in your undisciplined and shallow thinking – shallow because only still water runs very deep, and if you’re constantly shifting views based upon the latest social fads and customs, you will not possess the epistemological stability and depth to penetrate very deeply into the most critical issues of life. Customs and fads come and go – forever changing fleetingly like the summer breezes that never hold to one direction or strength.

Scepticus: Studiosus, I believe that the beer accentuates your acidity, rather than ameliorating it.

Studiosus: Rather than starting a verbal battle between us (which, by the way, is characteristic of male intellectuals), how about discussing music a bit? After all, the music coming from the speakers at the moment seems to me a bit raucous.

Scepticus: Actually, I rather enjoy that music in a drinking atmosphere. I understand that you like more classical-type music, and I also love some classical; but who wants to hear classical music in an atmosphere of beer, women, and socializing?

Studiosus: I like many kinds of music other than classical; however, screeching, screaming, and nerve-grating music tends to generate considerable irritation in me. Hard Rock and Rap are pretty seriously into the domain of degenerate music.

Scepticus: Why do you insist on calling such music degenerate? I suppose that whatever doesn’t appeal to you gets demoted to the level of degeneracy.

Studiosus: More sarcasm, Scepticus. Do you agree with me that it’s possible for some music to exceed other kinds in quality, value, and desirability? Or is it all so relative that nothing can have objective value – only arbitrary, subjective, and relative value (relative to whoever is making the evaluation)?

Scepticus: Of course, I agree that there are some properties of music that can be properly rendered of higher quality than other kinds. But I would still suggest that those higher qualities are based, ultimately, on the subjective evaluation of the human population in general – that is, such qualities as would more often be regarded highly by human beings throughout individual cultures, as well as over successive cultures and eras. Quality in music surely has more potential for specific qualities than would be determined exclusively by a given culture at a given time. Some properties of music will surely be nearly universally regarded more highly than other properties – even across all generations of all human cultures.

Studiosus: I’m gratified to see that you’re capable of some deep and sagacious analysis. On the matter of music, our views and sentiments might not diverge as badly as in many other areas of human concern, even though I still think we will likely disagree on precisely which properties of music ought to be universally regarded as being of high quality. As for myself, I would not dare offer any critique on the philosophy of music. Although I’m a passionate lover of music, its composition, production, and analysis must remain with someone more talented in those realms than me. If you wish to offer examples of universally desirable qualities in music, I will pay close attention.

Scepticus: I will pass on that invitation – given that I’m a philosopher of language rather than a philosopher of music or the arts. By the way, dinner beckons me at home, and I’m willing to end this lively discussion until our next meeting, at which time I hope to discuss just a bit the book I’m writing – I’ll let you guess its general subject matter.

Studiosus: It would not be too difficult to offer a guess on the general nature of your book, and it’s especially easy to guess that it’ll endorse the liberal end of the philosophical spectrum. At any rate, I’m sure some of the ideas in it will be thought-provoking – maybe even deep. Have a good evening, and we’ll meet for further philosophical cogitations and analyzes soon.

Scepticus: You are very liberal with the word liberal – does that make you a liberal? See you next time.

[2 Days Later – Same Restaurant]

Language, Reality, and Knowledge

Studiosus: Hello again Scepticus. Are you ready for an intellectual challenge?

Scepticus: Well, Studiosus, if it’s not the same arrogant fellow who thinks he can challenge every other thinker on the block! I’m quite prepared to discuss my new developing book, and I’m fully prepared to defend all its theses from the likes of you.

Studiosus: Now that we’ve ordered our beers, let me hear about this glorious book of yours. Do you have a title yet? – one which even a simpleton would presume to involve language and its philosophical nature.

Scepticus: Yes Studiosus, I do at least have a tentative title; the publishers might not wish to concur with my choices, though – after all, does not the publisher have the last word? My book is to be titled: The Subjectivity and Relativity of Epistemology: The Annihilation of Objective Reference.

Studiosus: That’s a rather highfalutin-sounding title. But it obviously is suggestive of a worldview which would deny any form of objective reality. Are you prepared to argue that all of reality, when it comes down to the last word, must be regarded as merely subjective? If you wish to become rather radical in the implications of your ontology, then does it not devolve on the very idea that the physical universe is a mere illusion, possessive of no objectively real features?

Scepticus: Well, well, Studiosus! You and your logically critical analyses! You are no good at metaphor, are you?

Studiosus: Frankly, I didn’t realize you are writing a book of poetry. I thought that you’re, more or less, writing about the nature of the universe, life therein, and how language can refer to those – shall we say realities? As for myself, I don’t regard the universe to be a work of poetry, but maybe your views diverge from mine here.

Scepticus: I detect a bit of disingenuousness and acidic sarcasm – so typical of the close-minded among us! I’m not exactly claiming that the universe is mere poetry – not that I regard poetry as inferior to physics, but simply that poetry involves aspects of reality that occur in a different sphere than the physics of the universe.

Studiosus: Well now, are you going to descend into your foggy smokescreens and beat around the bush with language that you do not regard as possessive of any meaning that has any reference to any objective aspect of any reality? Can we, for once, get down to something — shall I say nitty-gritty — such that we can discuss something pragmatic, literal, and that has bearing on the real world?

Scepticus: You make it sound as though the real world were something that has an obvious nature, clearly and unambiguously nested in rigorous logic and physics. That’s one of the troubles with many of you logicians – you just can’t seem to appreciate ambiguities and metaphors. You are obsessed with literalism and some kind of commonsense, naïve view of (supposedly) objective reality. Why can’t we just content ourselves with mystery, ambiguity, and the subjectivity of perspective? You view the world in black and white – always clear-cut, always susceptible to the rigors of a logic whose very nature (when properly understood) is a mere artifact of human ingenuity, and is possessive of nothing more objective than sentimental impositions of structure upon a reality that is infinitely complex, and whose ultimate nature it is impossible, even in principle, to determine.

Studiosus: Scepticus, it’s just people like you who render modern philosophy little better than a joke, far less important to university presidents and administrators than literature, music, and art. Thus, philosophy departments are always the last item on the list of eligibility for university funds, and their professors are regarded as little more than dreamy, idealistic, airheads who have to find a text in some philosophy reference to tell them how to get out of the rain.

Scepticus: Well, here comes your virulent and acidic sarcasm to full force! Of course, philosophy can properly be regarded as being, in general, far less applicable to real life – at least in most cases – than the sciences, and also less popular than music, art, and literature to the common, shallow-minded person who thinks little deeper or harder than what is required for buying groceries, cooking a meal, building a home, and such.

Studiosus: If I were you, I think that I would wish to not demean the common person too much. Commonsense seems to usually come out the winner in most contests. So why demean it as unworthy of an intelligent person? It is common sense, and not philosophy, that tells me how to build a home that withstands the vicious vibrations of a violent earthquake.

Scepticus: I do not think that I’m so enamored of and impressed by common sense as you are. Sure, common sense is fine in its proper place, but it can’t take us all so much further than the lower animals’ searches for food, water, shelter, and means of reproduction. Are you suggesting that humans are not worthy of reaching into higher realms of reality – where the beauty and mysteries of language become some of our most important tools – indeed, which shape our realities?

Studiosus: I believe that when it comes to language, you mistakenly put the cart before the horse – something unworthy of even the most basic common sense, but common sense is something which some philosophers seem to wish to renounce in their fanciful worlds of idealism and imaginary realms. Actually, as I see it, reality shapes language – not the other way around. Oh of course, I would never suggest that our ways of experiencing reality are not very greatly influenced by our languages. This could hardly be doubted. However, the universe that we encounter seems to quite successfully and consistently tick away without our observations of it, or our linguistic descriptions of it. So, surely you do not wish to categorize our powers of language potent to the point of bringing into being the billions of extremely distant galaxies that roam our universe, and that did so billions of years before we were around to observe them. This is the sort of observation that makes your linguistic diatribes foolishness to any genuinely rational thinker.

Scepticus: Well Studiosus, I wish to answer you next time around; however, I must leave this matter hanging where we presently are, since I have obligations elsewhere, and I also wish very much to discuss my book next time – even if you are bound to scathingly attack it from every angle you can contrive in your rigorously logical analyzes.

Studiosus: I will gladly hear your discussions of this challenging book – and no, I’m not being sarcastic, since I am convinced that your thinking on the philosophy of language has to be considered as containing many jewels of wisdom, regardless of how much I will wish to attack some of its underpinnings. Have a nice evening.

[At a Later Date]

Chapter 2

Discussions of a Developing Book on Epistemology and Language

Studiosus: Scepticus, I’m glad to see you could make it today; after all, a busy professor who’s in the midst of writing a book is likely not blessed with much leisure time.

Scepticus: You’re quite right about that Studiosus. But taking some time off from the intellectual struggles to drink a couple of beers, relax, and socialize can help regenerate the creative faculties, and also organize the thinking processes into greater clarity.

Studiosus: Well, creativity in itself is a subject worth any number of scientific and scholarly books, and how the mind can come to be creatively endowed is an issue full of unknowns – and for puny humans, possibly unknowable.

Scepticus: I still say that you wish to devalue human powers of intellect and creativity, rather than rejoicing in our awesome powers to figure out this universe that seems utterly determined to hide from us its greatest and most enchanting secrets.

Studiosus: I would suggest that it’s not exactly the case that the universe is trying to hide anything from us so much as it’s the matter of our greatly limited cognitive faculties, such that uncovering very much at all about reality is forever a great challenge to our wit.

Scepticus: At any rate, let me make a few comments about some of the theses of my new book. First off, I try hard to demonstrate in my book that human knowledge is culture-bound, that it is subjective, and that it’s merely a matter of a perspectival interpretation of our sense data.

Studiosus: Are you really suggesting that the universe about us is merely a matter of perspective