Graham Oppy on Analytic Idealism, Gödel's Proof for God, and Ontological Arguments
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- Prof Graham Oppy is the Professor of Philosophy at Monash University and, before that, did his graduate work at Princeton. He is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Humanities and the foundation editor of the Australasian Philosophical Review. He's also the author of several books, including Atheism: The Basics by Routledge, Arguing about Gods and Ontological Arguments and Belief in God-additionally, he's also published superlative papers on Gödel's ontological proof for the existence of God. Apart from being a renowned philosopher of religion, he has also published on the philosophy of math, language, aesthetics, and science. In this episode, we discuss new atheism, Bernardo Kastrup's analytical idealism, Gödel's proof for God, Anselm's and Hegelian ontological arguments, limits of formal axiomatisation, and its relationship to epistemology and Christian existentialism.
You can find more of Prof Oppy's work at research.monas... and x.com/OppyGraham
RSam Podcast #41
---------------------------------------
{Podcast}
Substack: rsampod.substa...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Anchor: anchor.fm/rahu...
Available on other platforms at link.chtbl.com...
{Website}
rahulsam.me/
{Social Media}
/ trsam97
/ name_is_rahul
substack.com/@...
/ rahul-samaranayake-981...
{Reference Links}
• Does Math Point to God...
www.amazon.com...
• Graham Oppy - Alleged ...
www.academia.e...
• Does Physicalism or Id...
---------------------------------------
If the ideas I discuss in this channel evoke your interest, consider visiting theunhappyman....
---------------------------------------
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.
Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statutes that might otherwise be infringing.
If you are or represent the copyright owner of materials used in this video and have a problem with the use of the related material, please email me at trahulsam@gmail.com, and we can sort it out. Thank you.
I appreciate how Oppy emphasizes the difference between "arguments" and "reasons", among many other things of course. He has helped me quite a bit in sorting out my own weary thoughts.
Yes, good observation about Dr Oppy. He definitely is one the clearest and most lucid thinkers I've come across.
I can't follow his reasoning when he questions gödels ontological proof. Why does the negation of the possibility of a perfection entail other properties?
Can you give me the timestamp for the part you’re referring to?
@@RahulSam at 34:50
To defend Analytic Idealism from Oppy's criticism that it is the "worst theory ever" because everything that happens in the universe is posited as a brute fact about god, I ask why this is an issue specific to Analytic Idealism and not Physicalism or any other metaphysics?
If I ask a physicalist "why does mass attract mass and why are the laws of electromagnetism the way they are or why are the physical constants the way they are?". The answer to these questions will also end up being brute facts under physicalism. "The universe does what it does because it is what it is" as Kastrup likes to say. So this isn't really some unique issue for Analytic Idealism, and it's certainly not answered more satisfyingly in a physicalist framework.
Yeah, I agree with this point. A priori, this argument from causality fits within a physicalist or idealist framework as they're both naturalistic in their own way. Indeed, such arguments have been put forward by many theologians, at least since Aquinas, independent of idealism or physicalism.
That is circular
@@MiladTabasy I don’t think you know what circular means
@@zak2659 Okay Are you trying to defend the statement that " it is what it is" as not being a circular argument?! Universe needs sufficient reason for its existence and trying to explain its existence by itself is not a sufficient reason for it.
@@MiladTabasy I am saying that brute facts are required in both Physicalism and Idealism.
The sufficient reason for the universe would itself be a brute fact. It would be a statement of what is as opposed to what is not.
Isn't in analytic idealism every mind a part of one "grander" mind (a mind at large as Kastrup states it)? Thats where the input is coming from as far as i understand it. The relations between the mind-parts are the "inputs" and these relations are structured (what we call "laws" or rather "regularities") within the grander mind. At least thats how i interpret Kastrup. Btw a similar model can be stated about another metaphysical speculative model, like the simulation hypothesis, replace "grander mind" with "universal computer".
This is a good reading of analytic idealism, but the contention Prof Oppy puts forward is that idealism doesn't make sense in an atheistic sense and requires this theistic super-being, so to speak, that is, this grander mind or mind at large. The question is, what is this grander mind? Is it God or some passive mental state? Does it have motivations, passions, etc.?
@@RahulSam Kastrup would say that mind at large doesnt have motivations or passions, he believes it doesn't have any metacognition. Its behaviour is spontaneous or instintinctual like that of a plant/insect. Examples of this thoughtless instinctual behaviour could be gravitational effects, electromagnetism etc. Kastrup thinks that the ability to plan ahead (metacognition) is something that only developed through evolution so god's mind doesn't have it.
@@zak2659 Yeah, I've heard this, too. And I see the logic behind it, although what then is the use of posting a mind at large, as it seems no different from that dead matter that the physicalist puts forth?
@@RahulSam The use of it is to say that its nature is experiential. Its not dead, it has phenomenal experiences. In other words, there is something it is like to be mind at large, this is the key difference with dead matter. This has many implications, one being the afterlife.
@@RahulSam I believe the Kastrup position of the Mind at Large is that it's largely similar to the Jung's collective unconscious. It does have motivations and drives but they are instinctive, much more like the God of the Old Testament - it's conscious in the sense that it is experiential but it's not premeditative, it's the God of Job - the impulsive one.
This would attract large views and fallowing to your channel as well.
Take care
Thank you for the kind words, my friend.
@ 20:00 Spinozas god and Hegelian dialectics. What came first... really great work. Keep up the learning. Eventually, you get to zeitgeist and super ego being the focus of... society, learning, and education. The culture of knowledge that Plato talks about broadcasting back into the void of the cave. The meta cognitive framework for passing information on in a way that makes the student feel as if they did it all by themselves, is the best practice. John Dewey, not the decimal guy, the education guy, has some very interesting ideas about the science of learning, or at least his early version of what we are teaching today. The modern push is to disassemble the teacher student hierarchy and make learning a feedback mechanism. I mean, when you think about it, knowing what you are talking about and being able to articulate those ideas is learning. It's just that teachers are learning how to learn and how to teach. You learn the philosophy, and you start to build a phenomenological curriculum to help students achieve "feeling what it is like." Other minds, you can only ever be the broadcaster. The onus for learning is on the individual. However, you can employ better and more useful learning experiences and metaphors to make the journey easier. Cheers...
@ 25:00 the universe is unknowable as we are embedded in it. The thing is, that language and, therefore, agreement is physical, is material. It lives in the cultural space between people sharing their lives together. We must have a conception of material/ physical because institutions literally depend on it. It honestly, in that sense, doesn't matter if the reality is solopsistic. Religion being emotionally driven can never be turned into a shared agreed upon language it can only ever be shared in groups or appreciated individually. My argument for why I dont believe in a collective conscience outside of our shared culture of knowledge. We are not telepathic and need to invent ways of being in agreement to not kill each other. That doesn't sound collective to me.
@ 45:00 How do we know we know something? Phenomenological knowledge is yours alone unless you share it, and another person agrees that it's right. That's the language version of the self embedding problem. How do you describe your eyes without a mirror......? Since language itself is recursive and numbers are a symbolic representation of ideas we made up after sharing began, you can't use math to describe language because math is not arbitrary language is. Wrappers, orders of magnitude, jurisdictions, boundaries, layers of an onion, nesting dolls. You have to have a layer that is the placeholder before you can describe something. Hence, the invocation of a God head in Gödels work. The universe must be embedded in something per Hegel, what comes first.
Besides being a representation of a single thing, what is one? Is it the same as 1...?
And how would you go about "knowing" that you knew those things without agreement from others or being taught in the first place?
Edit: That is what recursive means. Since we are trying to define the universe by naming God as the placeholder, we invoke the necessity to explain where God comes from. And that is even more unknowable... it just becomes turtles all the way down... or past a certain level all the way up... So in explaining consciousness we need to explain the wrapper, ie, the body which in its purest form is material. Try holding your breath for twenty minutes before refuting. Conciseness does not exist without a body to manifest it into existence. We can't explain the body well enough materially to explain where conscience arises from. So we can't explain our phenomenal experience as a mechanism of consciousness, we have to invent a material way to represent what we experience to another person in a way that makes us confident we are understood. Biology and neurological sciences... those can be agreed upon externally. But still can't explain sensation or experience and therefore consciousness.
Our inability to know does not point to anything other than the limitations of having other minds. It does not connect to emotive wonder or prove anything.
Edit: On set theory... aren't university departments just different sets of axiomatic best practices for reaching the cutting edge of that field, or school of thoughts, knowledge?
Currently working on a novel where the Incompleteness Theorems imply that any sufficiently logical god goes insane 😼
Wow! I love it. Please email it to me once it's out, or let me know where I can buy it.
What?
You do realize that it can only apply to a formal system that corresponds to Peano arithmetic?
Stop misapplying the theorem.
@@HaqiqaSeeker 😹😹😹 I bet you're fun at parties!
I'm being protectively vague about the implementation. I might say that my story is a little schlocky - it's going to be closer to Event Horizon than to Contact or the Principia Mathematica 😹
More seriously, I'm exploring a materialist realization of the theist assertion that god is an abstract object
Analytics Idealism is much better ontology than materialism.
It could be 😀
Your claim about mathematics being an instrument to solve certain problems may be not totally correct, or i misunderstood your position. I heard in a podcast of parkers pensees (I'm not a mathematician) there are many occasions mathematics is just done for mathematics sake, a proof is found and applicability is found later for certain models in physics. In some sense mathematics tells us what the world is.
It depends on how broadly you treat the notion of “a problem”
Excellent nuance here! To clarify - I certainly wasn't saying mathematics isn't done for its own sake. Rather, I was taking a quasi-anti-realist approach as to how mathematics relates to the physical and social world. Mathematics has a world of its own in some Platonic sense. I had an excellent discussion with Prof. Joel David Hamkins on this: th-cam.com/video/7Mhioir_-Ic/w-d-xo.htmlsi=F6x_I4TCdlfsIR4d
But mathematics is only sometimes isomorphic to the physical world. It's a tool we use, and axiomatic systems are in our toolbox that we can use accordingly. That being said, this could also be said about natural language and even poetry or literature.
This dude’s like the gruff Australian doppelgänger of Dr. Hamkins, in looks and in subject matter…sorta ;) First thought that came to my mind when I saw the thumbnail
Ah haha, good one! I never thought of that.
I find it funny that you decided to ask an analytical philosopher about hegel and kierkegaard.
Haha, I mean, why not? This is something I love doing as I like to bring these two ostensibly separate camps into dialogue.
@@RahulSam Well it wasn't very insightful as he gave the most stereotypical analytic philosopher answer: subtly implying obscurantism. Not that he's necessarily wrong.
G Oppy is my favourite atheist .
He sure is great! And a fantastic interlocutor, too.
Mathematics describe the world well but then natural language also describes the world fairly well and where it doesn't, natural language could be refined.
Maybe mathematics aren't even really a separate "thing", just another language with convenient notation. There are cats in the world and the word "cat" captures that, there are quantities in the world and then we construct the natural numbers as a way to describe that.
I'm not 100% certain this view is correct, who knows, maybe mathematical Platonism is actually true, but under something like fictionalism or nominalism there is nothing surprising imo.
When it comes to physical phenomena that were predicted by mathematical equations, this also happens with natural language, it's just pattern matching in general. We could still ask why there any regularities at all of course, I don't really know.
Yep, I'm in agreement here. I take an instrumentalist view towards mathematics, but I'm still undecided about natural language, especially after being influenced by Heidegger and phenomenology.
Thank you for this interview.
It would be good to interview Bernardo Kastrup and place this questions to him. And then ideally arrange for a discussion between Graham and Bernardo kastrup to dive deep into the virtues and shortness of each theory.
I really, really dislike Bernardo Kastrup, honestly. I think he’s far less philosophically rigorous than his followers think he is, and he openly and continually defends claims about neuroscience, psychedelics, etc. that scientists consistently prove are incorrect. His mission seems to be to “attack scientism,” and his whole ontology is built around contradicting naive materialism and positing his half-baked alternative. It’s almost all straw-man arguments undermining claims that “materialist” scientists aren’t actually making, which he spoon-feeds to new-age mystical types. His whole recent career seems to be a polemical spectacle. He’s been doing his circuits on all the woo-woo podcasts for years.
TLDR, He’s a sophist, and debunks people with rhetoric, not rigor. I’d steer clear of him.
Cheers!
In fact, there already is a discussion between them both: th-cam.com/users/live8WK-auo8Miw?si=bwmIR9A7suoqBYk3
Having said that, I'm thinking of organising a follow-up one early next year.
@@birdwatching_u_back Hear, hear! Totally agree.
@@RahulSam I watch this interview. Unfortunately it was too short. And it could have been better moderated.
That discussion would deserve a few parts to go through the reasoning of both philosophical perspectives.
🙏
@@birdwatching_u_backI would also add that he is extremely arrogant. Almost in all his interviews/articles, 50% is dedicated to denigrating his opponents beforehand.
Maybe im not following his critique at Godel's ontological argument. But isn't it possible for a atheist to think about the possible existence of these positive properties? To dismiss these properties because you don't believe in God seems arguing the wrong way around, but maybe im missing something. As a theist, oppy is probably the most nice and interesting atheist philosepher, very nice interview.
Prof Oppy sure is a lovely person! He's always very amiable in his debates.
Gödel's ontological proof is a complex argument. I'm still getting my head around it too. Since it's a modal argument, it's on the possibility of a being of the highest greatness existing in reality if it can also be conceived in the mind. Here's a paper Prof Oppy wrote on the matter: www.academia.edu/8233351/Godelian_ontological_arguments
Came here before - many months ago. Some in depth research done - and an amazing idea came.
Atheists - would be - more likely - to come to mysticism - than religionists.
Atheists - value - above all - their freedom - of thought - maybe action - to challenge - the whole God issue.
Mystics also value their freedom - in thought/action - researching - the Divine Principle - beyond religion.
Back to meditation - for meself. Answers and questions await - to be tested and experienced.
Fare thee well - in life's journey.
Thank you for your comments and insights! I like the analogies.
@@RahulSam Thanks sir. Just pondering - the question of thought in action and where we go to and what we may become.
Not in any way - informed or expert - in anything.
So - on and on......
A glib dismissal of analytic idealism with an absence of point by point refutation of current work in the area. Abysmal scholarship
I don't believe this conversation was supposed to have the rigour of academic scholarship, as it was only a podcast. But I understand your frustration. Which parts of Dr Oppy's argument would you say are lacking?
Oppy's not taking his monism seriously, and is overlooking the non-dual foundation of analytic idealism. There are no "inputs" to explain. There is only mind.
How does saying there is only mind differ from saying there is only matter?
@@RahulSam The latter is an extrapolation beyond awareness, beyond something-that-it-is-like-ness. Attempting to conceive of the inconceivable.