> But see, even a simple statement such as "there are two chairs in the
> room" makes sense only if we agree on what is a chair, what is number
> two, and what is a room.
Sure, but most of the time we do. Only when particular problems arise with any of them would we stop and try to iron them out. This is especially the case with the number 2 -- how could there be controversy about that? Sure, as Kel points out, we could dispute about whether a packing crate was a chair, but we hardly ever do outside of a philosophy classroom.
This is part of the point Wittgenstein is making at the beginning of the Investigations -- language is used in "language games" the rules of which people normally take for granted.
> There is nothing given about any of those concepts. Truth is a
> matter of consensus. If memory serves me right, I think it
> was Kolakowski who once asked since a dog or a fly doesn't see the
> same shape, size, or form (of two chairs, for instance) as we do, what
> gives us the right that what we see is the absolute reality?
If truth were a matter of consensus, then the world would have been flat when everyone believed it was. A rather odd theory of truth, I would say. "Truth" has a perfectly good use the way we ordinarily use it: to refer to what is so whatever we might believe.
Of course we don't see "absolute reality," but that doesn't mean that we can't make true statements. It's simply true that there are two chairs in my room, even though we don't perceive the elementary particles (or superstrings) which make them up. Nor can we be sure, even, that they are made up of superstrings; an even better theory may be discovered by the 24th century, Star Trek time. So what? "Absolute reality" is a concept invented by philosophers, and has little if any use outside their classrooms.
> However, I am not saying that an objective reality does not exist.
Then I would be very careful about saying that "truth is a matter of consensus." You might be misinterpreted. :-)
> If we want to critique religion, we have to do better than "God does
> not exist, as those two chairs exist, its a simple truth, therefore
> religion is insensible." I don't mean any disrespect, but that's an
> outright silly way of doing philosophy. Sartre is actually lot more
> "sensible" when he said, I don't believe in God, because I don't need
> him. See, that is a immensely courageous statement because the
> existence of God here is a question of existential freedom and
> choice, not one about the essence or non-essence of God. (I am not
> advocating existentialism here, I am not an existentialist- all I am
> saying is that is a lot more practical way of conceptualizing the
> issue).
But I don't want to "critique" religion. I just want to say that I don't see any reason for assuming that God exists. I don't see any reason for assuming that the Sasquatch or the Loch Ness monster exist, either. But anyone who thinks they do is perfectly free to go on thinking so as far as I am concerned, as long as they don't harm anyone because of their beliefs.
My problem with some religious people is not with their religious beliefs as such. Unlike a lot of "professional" atheists, I'm not somehow personally offended by the fact that they have these unsupported beliefs. My problem is with those who try to order me and everyone else around by claiming that God is telling them the right way humans should live.
I'm not sure I ever understood Sartre very well; it's a problem I have with most of those French fellows. I prefer the position Rorty takes in the quote I give below; we'd be better not using "God" so much, because a lot of people who take seriously the idea that God tells us how to live cause all sorts of trouble, especially when they get guns or bombs in their hands.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________ It isn’t that we believe in God, or don’t believe in God, or have suspended judgment about God, or consider that the God of theism is an inadequate symbol of our ultimate concern; it is just that we wish we didn’t have to have a view about God. It isn’t that we know that “God” is a cognitively meaningless expression, or that it has its role in a language-game other than fact-stating, or whatever. We just regret the fact that the word is used so much.
— Richard Rorty