Utility versus Futility

[Robert Arvay]

Among the many interlocking principles that I find useful in discussing metaphysics is the one I call, “Utility versus Futility.”

It’s really quite simple. If two metaphysical proposals (or theories) are equally supportable by evidence and logic, then the one to prefer should be the one with more practicality, more usefulness.

For example, let us consider whether the universe follows coherent natural laws, or instead, whether everything happens purely at random, in which case, the universe could at any moment revert to incomprehensible chaos. (This second has actually been seriously proposed, and goes under such names as “Last Thursdayism,” which says that the entire universe came into being, fully formed including with our memories, only last Thursday—or a moment ago—and can vanish at any instant.)

Both proposals can be argued with logic and evidence, but only the first proposal has any practical merit, for example, as in planning for NEXT Thursday.

This principle is useful in such topics of discussion as, do we have NO free will? Are we incapable of knowing anything at all? Are we illusions, or figments of a computer’s imagination, or dreams by extraterrestrial aliens?

One cannot entirely disprove such notions, but if one accepts them, will his life be improved? Can falsehood lead only, in the end, to catastrophe and suffering? If so, then is it not incumbent to seek truth?

Less directly connected, are cases in which the principle of utility applies in varying degrees. For example: are we transient physical (or even mental) phenomena, or are we eternal sovereign beings? Are we pawns of the gods, or are we the creatures of a loving deity? Are we happenstance coincidences, or deliberately formed?

Each of us must decide for himself which path, from among the innumerable many, to choose, and none of us has such vast and infallible wisdom as to reliably make the best choice.

I therefore find it more useful to rely on revealed wisdom, such as in the Bible, rather than to think myself capable of working out the answers myself.

In the end, we must each reap as we sow.
-
-

[Martin_]

I'm sorry, but I thought it was exactly the passionate attempts of specific humans of working out the answers which led to the revealed wisdom in the Bible.

[Robert Arvay]

Martin wrote:
I'm sorry, but I thought it was exactly the passionate attempts of specific humans of working out the answers which led to the revealed wisdom in the Bible.

That is what people commonly believe.
But, given that the Bible was written in two languages over millennia, and yet has a consistent development of its thread, it is more likely that it comes from a single source. (There are more reasons than this, as well.)

One either accepts or rejects that, and lives (or dies) with the consequence.
Fortunately, even there, God leads, guides and directs us toward the truth.
We cooperate, or resist, according to our decision.
-

[SanteriSatama]

I therefore find it more useful to rely on revealed wisdom, such as in the Bible, rather than to think myself capable of working out the answers myself.

Are you really that sure that you are uncapable to feel genuine love and compassion, and instead of a modicum of self-confidence, need to rely on a book that was put together by the command of the Roman Emperor, for the purposes of Roman Empire?

If you trust a book more than you love your neighbor, how and why could your neighbor trust you?

[AshvinP]

I therefore find it more useful to rely on revealed wisdom, such as in the Bible, rather than to think myself capable of working out the answers myself.

Are you really that sure that you are uncapable to feel genuine love and compassion, and instead of a modicum of self-confidence, need to rely on a book that was put together by the command of the Roman Emperor, for the purposes of Roman Empire?

If you trust a book more than you love your neighbor, how and why could your neighbor trust you?

You both are standing in for perspectives on scripture which are two sides of the same flawed modernist coin where mind has been divided into "personal" mentation vs. everything else of importance. Robert says "revealed wisdom" of God cannot have any overlap with human Thinking and its constellating of transpersonal meaning, SS says "revealed wisdom" is product of Roman imperialism for only cynical purposes. Neither position even existed prior to the 15th century. That alone should be a strong hint that they are both extremely biased anti-spiritual prejudices of modernity. When are we going to truly transcend these modern prejudices instead of only convincing ourselves that we have moved past them when we still remain very much in their totalizing possession? This is pretty much Kant vs. Schopenhauer - the former trying to set "God" apart from all critique (or even investigation) of human reason, so as to insulate "faith", and the latter trying to eliminate God by denying human reason flows forth from a true spiritual realm of real spiritual beings.

[SanteriSatama]

SS says "revealed wisdom" is product of Roman imperialism for only cynical purposes.

No, I stated a simple historical fact of the compilation of texts called 'Bible'. Are you really so unaware that you are unable to see the reference to the revealed wisdom of neighborly love, and you must always jump to the most toxic interpretation available?

[AshvinP]

SS says "revealed wisdom" is product of Roman imperialism for only cynical purposes.

No, I stated a simple historical fact of the compilation of texts called 'Bible'. Are you really so unaware that you are unable to see the reference to the revealed wisdom of neighborly love, and you must always jump to the most toxic interpretation available?

It's not a historical fact, not even close. Basically it's a point you lifted from a Dan Brown novel without any serious contemplation of how scripture develops. And like I said, that false point of yours did not even exist more than a few hundred years ago. Only modern "scholarship" abstracted so far away from the living essence of scripture that calling it a "book" and chalking it all up to "purposes of the Roman Empire" became an assertion that was not considered completely absurd and detached from reality. Sometimes you just need to take responsibility for your own obvious errors and stop blaming everything on "toxic colonialism" or whatever and whomever you happen to be blaming on any given day.

[SanteriSatama]

It's not a historical fact, not even close. Basically it's a point you lifted from a Dan Brown novel without any serious contemplation of how scripture develops.

I remember discussing these issues a lot in the 80's when I was studying Greek Philology, and when my colleques were translating the Nag Hammadi library into Finnish. Way before Dan Brown. The definitive Canon and demoting "apocrypha" goes back to Athanasios of Alexandria, who was a main figure already in Council of Nicea, and spent his time in politics of the Empire and dogmatic schisms over litterary orthodoxy. Nag Hammadi library was hidden in ground during or shortly after the days of Athanasios, to save the texts from the biblical book burning to eradicate "heretical" texts, book burnings that went along with violent massacres between various dogmatic factions. Among the Nag Hammadi texts is the 'Gospel of Thomas', which also according to my little own dabbling in textual analysis is very old and closest available source to the Q-source, around which the earliest "historical" narratives of Jesus were fabulated. Gospel of Thomas and much of the other Nag Hammadi texts belong to the esoteric tradition. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to strongly reject the esoteric Christianity both in word and spirit?

Only modern "scholarship" abstracted so far away from the living essence of scripture that calling it a "book" and chalking it all up to "purposes of the Roman Empire" became an assertion that was not considered completely absurd and detached from reality.

The dogmatic scholarship of the religion of Roman Empire felt the need to engage in massive book burning and massacres to wipe out especially esoteric "herecy". If the Canon declared by Athanasios is the "living essence", instead of Love and Compassion, why the need to burn books and people considered "rivals" of religious orthodoxy?

Sometimes you just need to take responsibility for your own obvious errors and stop blaming everything on "toxic colonialism" or whatever and whomever you happen to be blaming on any given day.

Do you love me, Ashvin? Do you love yourself?

[Soul_of_Shu]

I remember discussing these issues a lot in the 80's when I was studying Greek Philology, and when my colleques were translating the Nag Hammadi library into Finnish. Way before Dan Brown. The definitive Canon and demoting "apocrypha" goes back to Athanasios of Alexandria, who was a main figure already in Council of Nicea, and spent his time in politics of the Empire and dogmatic schisms over litterary orthodoxy. Nag Hammadi library was hidden in ground during or shortly after the days of Athanasios, to save the texts from the biblical book burning to eradicate "heretical" texts, book burnings that went along with violent massacres between various dogmatic factions. Among the Nag Hammadi texts is the 'Gospel of Thomas', which also according to my little own dabbling in textual analysis is very old and closest available source to the Q-source, around which the earliest "historical" narratives of Jesus were fabulated. Gospel of Thomas and much of the other Nag Hammadi texts belong to the esoteric tradition. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to strongly reject the esoteric Christianity both in word and spirit?

Only modern "scholarship" abstracted so far away from the living essence of scripture that calling it a "book" and chalking it all up to "purposes of the Roman Empire" became an assertion that was not considered completely absurd and detached from reality.

The dogmatic scholarship of the religion of Roman Empire felt the need to engage in massive book burning and massacres to wipe out especially esoteric "herecy". If the Canon declared by Athanasios is the "living essence", instead of Love and Compassion, why the need to burn books and people considered "rivals" of religious orthodoxy?

I expect that the Biblical revelations Robert is referring to are the ones that occurred long before the Jesus event and the writing of the subsequent Christian gospels of the New Testament, which did indeed involve the official approval of the 4 canonical texts by the high priests, as being the true account of Jesus, while dismissing and banning any others as either unreliable or outright heresy, along with severely dealing with their followers—which in the cancel culture of that time meant possible execution—and whereby to save those texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas, they had to be buried in the desert. Who the high priests were that determined which revelations made it into the Old Testament, I have no idea, but I suspect that Robert would claim that it would have been at God's command in any case. So good luck getting past that irrefutable knowledge.

[SanteriSatama]

So good luck getting past that irrefutable knowledge.

What does conscience mean to you?