Dialogue
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:27 pm
The thread on critical thinking is blocked. I'm sorry for all concerned. The following may be useful. BookTalk and Chris has been kind to me. I hope I am giving back.
Frank, Thomas, Interbaine, Mr. P. et. al. I do not take personal offense that this thread has gone on for 15 pages and no one has cited my essay. (That’s a joke folks!) That being said, I believe the dialogue between me and my friend Maarten Van Swaay concernin his word smithing of my statement “The answer is there is no answer – only belief” The individual, personal, and unique belief of each person who asks and answers the question ‘is there life after death’ might offer a tranquil intervention to this thread. What follows is to me an example of critical thinking and respectful dialogue. I hope you find it useful.
"The answer is we have no answer now." Adding a word at the end, and
changing 'is' to 'we have' leaves the contradiction as stark as before.
If 'we have no answer' then 'the answer' cannot exist. If 'the answer'
is indeed 'the answer', then the statement is false. Both observations
unchanged from what I wrote earlier. The question 'is there life after
death' is a binary question; it can have only two answers: yes, and no.
But neither logic nor observation allow us to choose or dismiss either
answer, unless we make the question superficial by treating it semantically:
if life and death are seen as mutually exclusive, then on that semantic
ground the only possible answer is no. But neither you nor I seem
willing to escape by that facile route. So maybe we should acknowledge
that the casual understanding of 'life' and 'death' by itself raises
unanswered nontrivial questions.
If we do treat 'life' and 'death' as mutually exclusive, then we must
also admit that the question uses at least one, and maybe both words
with more than one meaning. Either we resolve the multiple meanings,
or we acknowledge the sentence as meaningless. That is old hat:
we can avoid the semantic problem by rephrasing: 'is there an afterlife?'
And if so, is that afterlife something other than death?
You tell me that I look at the issue 'like an x-ray machine'. Methinks
you have that backward. I look at the words for what they say.
You apparently want me to see them as you mean them, i.e. underneath
their visible outer appearance.
If you want people to think, should you not give them something
that 'makes sense', so that they have a starting point for their
thoughts? Try this for taste:
Maarten then proposes this rephrase of my statement.
"Neither logic nor observation can yield an answer, or refute a
proposed answer, to the question 'is there life after death'.
One may make peace with the question, by recognizing it as
unanswerable, or by admitting an answer that must then rest on
belief. That belief can only be personal: it may be possible to
describe it, but it cannot be argued, nor can it be imposed on others."
The time is late .... thanks for the challenge! It is one thing
to discover what strikes me as odd in your writing; the hard work
comes from prying it apart to find out why, and then to describe that
'why' precisely. Good to keep a mind awake!
I believe Maarten has presented a very clear example of dialogue and critical thinking. Thinking and Critical Thinking is such a pleasant civilized pastime.
Best wishes to all, Lawrence
Frank, Thomas, Interbaine, Mr. P. et. al. I do not take personal offense that this thread has gone on for 15 pages and no one has cited my essay. (That’s a joke folks!) That being said, I believe the dialogue between me and my friend Maarten Van Swaay concernin his word smithing of my statement “The answer is there is no answer – only belief” The individual, personal, and unique belief of each person who asks and answers the question ‘is there life after death’ might offer a tranquil intervention to this thread. What follows is to me an example of critical thinking and respectful dialogue. I hope you find it useful.
"The answer is we have no answer now." Adding a word at the end, and
changing 'is' to 'we have' leaves the contradiction as stark as before.
If 'we have no answer' then 'the answer' cannot exist. If 'the answer'
is indeed 'the answer', then the statement is false. Both observations
unchanged from what I wrote earlier. The question 'is there life after
death' is a binary question; it can have only two answers: yes, and no.
But neither logic nor observation allow us to choose or dismiss either
answer, unless we make the question superficial by treating it semantically:
if life and death are seen as mutually exclusive, then on that semantic
ground the only possible answer is no. But neither you nor I seem
willing to escape by that facile route. So maybe we should acknowledge
that the casual understanding of 'life' and 'death' by itself raises
unanswered nontrivial questions.
If we do treat 'life' and 'death' as mutually exclusive, then we must
also admit that the question uses at least one, and maybe both words
with more than one meaning. Either we resolve the multiple meanings,
or we acknowledge the sentence as meaningless. That is old hat:
we can avoid the semantic problem by rephrasing: 'is there an afterlife?'
And if so, is that afterlife something other than death?
You tell me that I look at the issue 'like an x-ray machine'. Methinks
you have that backward. I look at the words for what they say.
You apparently want me to see them as you mean them, i.e. underneath
their visible outer appearance.
If you want people to think, should you not give them something
that 'makes sense', so that they have a starting point for their
thoughts? Try this for taste:
Maarten then proposes this rephrase of my statement.
"Neither logic nor observation can yield an answer, or refute a
proposed answer, to the question 'is there life after death'.
One may make peace with the question, by recognizing it as
unanswerable, or by admitting an answer that must then rest on
belief. That belief can only be personal: it may be possible to
describe it, but it cannot be argued, nor can it be imposed on others."
The time is late .... thanks for the challenge! It is one thing
to discover what strikes me as odd in your writing; the hard work
comes from prying it apart to find out why, and then to describe that
'why' precisely. Good to keep a mind awake!
I believe Maarten has presented a very clear example of dialogue and critical thinking. Thinking and Critical Thinking is such a pleasant civilized pastime.
Best wishes to all, Lawrence