John West wrote:

nojoum wrote:

It also another reason why I no longer pursue philosophy; even if you have the truth, it would not enable you to live a moral life. People do not live an immoral life because they do not know good or evil, they live a immoral life because they do not know themselves enough to change their ways.

Change their ways to what? 
I think it's perfectly possible that, for instance, some brutal consequentialist could be doing evil, thinking he's doing good, because he doesn't know what is truly good or evil. As Sextus points out (and the history books bear witness to), people through time and space have earnestly acted on contradictory beliefs about right and wrong.

In the Euthydemus, Socrates argues that since we require knowledge of how to live the good life (wisdom) to know how to use all the other purported goods and all those other goods can be evils depending on how they're used, wisdom is the only good in itself. Hence, that the study of how to live the good life is at the very least an essential part of living the good life. (cf. 278c–282d.)

(Sorry for the digression, Joe. Farzad: If you want to discuss the argument (which I've just fixed my summary of and reposted, sorry), drop me a PM and I'll start a thread. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to contribute to it, but I know that it's a subject that interests a lot of other people on here who do have time. It might be worth starting a thread on it even if you don't PM me.)

Hahahahahah! Now that you changed the your summary, I don't have anything to argue about. I agree with everything you said. The only point that I am making is that I see no reason to study the world as long it has in some way a bearing on what the good life is or how to align yourself with good life (basically how to overcome the internal struggle that everyone face when trying to live a good life). Since, I see that believing in traditional God would not have any downsides( worst case scenario you held a wrong belief in your life), I just accept it without requiring any proof. Once I make this move, metaphysics at least the parts relating to God's existence are unnecessary. So why bother?

Edit: What better quote than this to get my point across! :D
"Intellect takes you to the door, but it doesn't take you into the house." Shams Tabrizi 

I think it originally meant that intellect at best can show you that God exists but it does not help you with knowing him (knowing in the sense that you know your best friend). I would also take it in the sense that knowing what is good in itself does not give you the power to do good!
 

Last edited by nojoum (11/23/2018 4:25 pm)

John West wrote:

RomanJoe wrote:

The consolation of religion is that it purports to be the Truth, it saves one from dilly-dallying in metaphysical struggles to understand the world. It gives one a cosmic narrative to inhabit.

Well, sure, but you could say the same about any philosophical system. They all purport to be the truth.

Yes, but in Christianity, for instance, there is divine revelation. The inner workings of the faith are guaranteed to be true if one accepts the initial premise of divine revelation.

John West wrote:

RomanJoe wrote:

Yes, but in Christianity, for instance, there is divine revelation. The inner workings of the faith are guaranteed to be true if one accepts the initial premise of divine revelation.

But then the inner workings of the faith rest on the strength of the initial premise of divine revelation. Why accept the initial premise?

Some philosophers have thought that, at the end of the day, we simply have to take a leap of faith, even if we're naturalists, and choose what to believe and how to live. I think that is fine. I think it may even be right. Others have suggested that we should sort of cudgel our intellects into submission and simply believe. I guess I think that is fine too. But some of us can't. For some of us the questions just well up.

I feel a lot of people unknowingly do just that, they let their worldview be governed by a will to believe. Do you find yourself in the latter group, someone who can't force his will to act prior to his intellect?

Last edited by RomanJoe (11/23/2018 7:37 pm)

John West wrote:

RomanJoe wrote:

Do you find yourself in the latter group, someone who can't force his will to act prior to his intellect?

I'm not sure I want to sign up to all that, but I'm most certainly someone for who questions just well up. I don't consider this a bad thing.

What are your questions like? How do you handle them? Lately I've found journaling to be a great way to organize my thoughts and settle certain questions I couldn't settle by unaided reflection on them.