Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Tyler Durden :

Meh. What are some of these putatively unexamined presuppositions? I say go ahead and examine these presuppositions, but do so in an accessible way.

Yes; I don't want to bother thinking of any just yet; no; probably not. I'm just reporting my phenomenal states here.

As I see it, arguments against content are misplaced. Supply will increase or decrease to meet demand, and the same goes for topics in philosophy. My main objection to continental philosophy, again, is with the presentation. I wouldn't say analytics are obsessed with language, either; it's just the reasonable point analytic philosophy would reach after what's occurred in its previous topics.

The method seems to make a lot more sense to me, and it's a lot easier to discourse about it. And my id doesn't like wading through pages and pages of Heidegger when it seems like an editor could have made a big difference. I just wish some of these continentals had finished up their drafts and then tried to go through and write an outline. I work as a philosophy writing tutor, and, well, I would have had to make quite a few comments on some continentals' papers.

Ah, conspiracy theory. Is this the same conspiracy that keeps Creationism out of biology departments and flat-earth theory out of astronomy and geology departments?

Less flippantly, again, I think supply would increase to meet demand. What do analytic philosophers lose by having continental philosophers in their department? As long as analytic philosophy isn't in danger of disappearing, nothing.

Philosoft

Messrs Durden, Metcalf and Clutch:

While I am rather enjoying reading your banter, it is technically off-topic. If this is something that you all think will be shortly connected to the OP, I will allow a further bit of latitude. Otherwise, you are all welcome to pursue the merits of continental vs. analytical philosophy in the more appropriate forum. Thanks.

~Philosoft, EoG moderator

Tyler Durden

Arrgh! Just when i was all pumped to post a sizzler of a response to really blow the lid off the dogma of ignorance...

Allright, i respectfully withdraw from this thread and apologize for the diversion.

One parting shots, messrs: do you agree that the language we use is the culprit behind this bogus demarcation (after all, neither body of discourse is truly homogeneous)?

Darkblade

Perhaps this thread should die (due to its deconversionary value), at least respective to theophilus.
No offense (or endorsement either) [to/of theophilus], but theophilus is the quintessence of indoctrination.

I know that my following quote is pessimistic, but I am a pessimist, and, in any case, it seems to (me) be a good description of reality:

Of course, one-way traffic is allowed between the worlds, but you can't travel back to take someone with you...

In any case, this thread has been interesting, both for data-viewing purposes and shock value.

I don't actually care whether this thread lives on or not; it's still fun to read regardless.

I was going to use all fourteen emoticons (or smilies, as they are labelled here). However, you apparently can not place fourteen images in one post, and I haven't the care to weed it down, therefore, I eliminated them all. If someone could please inform me, how many images may be placed in one post? (By the way, the tool text tip for the smilie "embarrassment" is misspelled "embarrasment".)

Fiach

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darkblade
[B]quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I conclude that people live in two unconnectable worlds; the one of faith, and the one of reason." -Myself

Darkblade, I have posted something quite similar to back up my hypthesis about brain substrate and belief.

People may live in two different universes. One is the real matter-energy universe that we see around us. The other is a Universe of Magic, Myth, and other superstition (i.e. religion.) Most people shift back and forth from one to the other. Fortunately the sane ones drift into the Magic Universe for an hour on Sunday Morning but return to the universe of physical reality the rest of the week.

Fundamentalists, who are extremists, live to some extent in the Magic universe too much of the time. They view the world as 6000 years old, ?flat?, center of the universe, a god-human divinity, etc. So they are standing with one leg in the real universe and the other and half of their brain in the Magic Universe.

Psychosis is the state that results when the person spends so much time in the Magic Universe and can't get back. He/she hallucinates, has biblical delusions to a harmful degree. He/she may kill for god (gays, doctors, dissenters, black people).

There are people who never enter the Magic universe perceiving it to be real. We all enjoy Stephen King, Clive Barker, H.P. Lovecraft but knowing the entire time of reading that it is imaginative writing for entertainment.

That is because the firmly commited Atheist, who could never really accept theistic notions, has a brain that is hard wired to reject it for its irrationality. I call it the Frontal Rubbish Filter. If one has a very effective FRF, you remain a sceptic and unbeliever. If your FRF is fairly good but not powerful, you may start as a Christian, but over time your FRF begins to weed out and put to question your beliefs until you finally reject them.

The hard core theist, like the paranormal crowd, UFO abductees, have a poorly developed FRF, or one that's function is very inefficient. As a result they are gullible to rubbish.

A large group of people are in the middle, perhaps the height of a Bell Curve who have a partly effective FRF that accounts for those whose believes shift and vary. They may have an "atheistic" phase and go back to church, and other have a "Christian born-again phase" for a long time and later the FRF kicks in and they reject it to join Fundamentalists Anonymous.

This is actually not so speculative. We know of Frontal brain circuits that do "filter" information. It tries to process that which "makes sense" and reject that which is "daffy". This complex circuitry has been studied by SPECT showing the neuronal generators (neurons) and the axonal pathways implied by the location of the many foci of increased metabolism.

Fiach

Darkblade

As Mr. Burns would say, "Excellent."

phillip millar

Hi Jobar,

First of all apologies for the delay in responding to yours of 16/03/03. Before commenting on the substance of your response I have on or two reflections on my original posting.

First, I was probably unkind in my use of the word 'determined' to describe the mind set of atheists. It suggests (unfairly on reflection) that you and others are atheists in spite of the evidence rather because of the apparent absence of evidence.

Secondly, I readily admit that metaphors have their limitations. Blindness from my own perspective merely illustrates one aspect of the human condition.

That said, the following thoughts occur to me as I read your response.

It strikes me that there there is a lot which must be taken on good faith. For example:

'Start by taking him out in the sun, and let him feel the heat of the sunlight...'

He is evidently trusting that this orb that he has never seen is actually there and that the heat which he feels is attributable to it and not some other source.

You may well present evidence which infers light and color, but as you rightly point out, the blind man has no faculty to perceive it. Evidence it is, but the case is not proved unless he can either see it or take your word for it.

Just a concluding word in respect of known as Santa Claus. I totally agree with your implication that to believe in Santa Claus merely because I receive presents on a certain day of the year is unreasonable. However if I do receive presents is it not reasonable to assume that there is a benefactor?

Best Regards

Phillip