John Page

What is this? Lords of the Thinks?

Keith Russell

Kantian, you're not rational.

Keith.

Primal

Actually if you are talking about popularity.....materialism has never really been popular. Kinda like atheism. Except maybe in Marxist states. In which case I should remind you that there are almost 1 billion materialists today.

If anything I think it's growing as science advances. More and more we begin to understand how the mind is basically the brain and how supernaturalism or any spiritual substance really isn't there. All that is part of this world merely seems to be matter in a physical,causal process.

If anything it is the supernaturalist flavored transcedentalism that is dying and materialism that is on the rise: for all save the dogmatic or ignorant.


~Foundationalist~ ~Materialist~ ~Naturalist~



Keith:

Finally somebody says it! The pompous elephant aknowledged at last.

Kantian

Too bad you can't argue that point, much less argue your way out of a paper bag even if you had a squirt gun and a starter hole.

~Transcendentalist~

Primal

Primal:


Because there are probably more people involved then just you Hugo. And I honestly don't think you'd listen.

As if this is a popularity contest.....which things always seem to be with you.

Actually I did. Isn't it possible someone can read you and not agree? What a concept.

Sure I am. In any event the manner in which you presented it was clearly meant as an insult.



Anyone who is seriously interested in philosophical discourse would at least attempt to refute my objection whether someone else thought so or not.


Yes and you speak for everyone right Hugo?




Har Har Har.

It's funny how you base all your arguments on rhetoric, seeing as your about as humorous as a barrel full of unconscious monkeys.....


What are you talking about? Cause I refer to you in third person? Calm down man, that isn't even a dis.


Actually I'm pointing out how you insist that you can create your own definition of relativism, but when someone else differs from you, the IEP is brought up as if its absolute.


No not really. Because what if you don't agree that you are wrong about your preferences? Or what if I just change to spite you?
Or I can simply declare agreement impossible.


Perhaps slower too! At the same time. Perhaps solipsism is compatible with objectivism, or so I could say as a relativist.


Relativist:" No they are not. Preference actually makes something worse for you. "


That's presupposing logical inference and many other things. What makes a logical inference more priveledged then a non sequitur? I could conclude the above argument with "thus intersubjectivity is flawed and blue eyes are worse for the group."


Yes but they may show what you mean by intersubjectivity but only vaguely. Examples leave too much room open for illustration. A hard and fast definition would be more appropriate. Examples can only lead to understanding after a definition has been at least attempted.



But the above is only an arbitrary claim. No more true or false then claiming that a preference leads to a refutation. It seems you are trying to escape the relativist vacuum through an epistemic utilitarianism, when in reality nothing escapes the vacuum at all.



So reason and logic must go but popular opinion will now take the lead?

Are you thus telling me the only thing that separates Duane Gish from Richard Dawkins is popularity? If everyone believes Gene Ray is Gene Ray now right?

Sorry but relativism must even reject the idea of intersubjectivity itself.

As for the claim concerning politics....totally different subject. You are confusing actions and ideas, actual events to epsitemic standards at this point. I don't care if for example India one day votes that evolution is BS, if evolution happened it happened whether someone wishes to admit this or not. Now if they vote to make a law taking it out of text books, that will effect them but nothing more.

So you really didn't answer my question.....


But once something is priveleged you have left relativism.


Then...it...cannot....establish....anything. Not....even...the...concept....of...intersubjectiv ity.



Actually I am and I am seeing that it doesn't work. I WAS a relativist but the system really does not work. Why don't you stop avoiding this simple fact?



In which case you are positing it as priveleged and abandoning relativism.


Because the objection really do not refute objectivism at all. They merely posit nonobjectivist axioms and finish with the claim "objectivism is wrong" by circular reasoning while pretending as if their objections work within an objectivist framework.



Bias? Misleading? An honest author would let his reader know all the options.

Also isn't it a bit "nonrelativistic" to dismiss a given claim as a "myth"?



Already did. An answer, even if you don't like it: is still an answer. Basically I implied that the crticism was based on an extreme version of LRH, which I reject.


What exactly is "ontological power"?



Well then reductio ad absurdum.


Is he and is it? Why can't I for example say Objectivists are people that believe in the irrational?





Actually I don't feel Kantian is even worth answering in a serious manner after that last post. In any case, are you afraid of answering for yourself? Proof surrogate friend. "I have evidence, its just with my friend right now."


Did you? Are my eyes deceiving me Hugo?

You presented it as a refutation, or disconfirmation of foundationialism, which it is not. Look again at your own post.



Yes.....its called "reading your posts". I see you seem to present absolutism and relativism as the only two choices. Don't be simple Hugo, you don't have to say it verbatim.


But many,many people seek simple solutions to complex problems.


Yes cause you can apply the same answer to every problem or question. Why is creationism true? Cause I choose it to be. Theism? Cause I choose it to be. Heliocentrism? Cause I choose it to be. Ad naseum.


Well that'd be rather conveniant for you. This would allow you to poke holes in your favorite straw man: abolsutism, with ease. However all my viewpoints rest on my objectivist/foundationalist belief system. I will not pretend they do not.

And I will not present a false, noncomparison of objectivism to relativism in a discussion where exposure and evaluation of ideologies is crucial.

Primal

Looks like he's confirmed your statement Keith. He couldn't do a better job of stabbing himself had he handed you a knife and stretched out his throat.

Kantian

It is absolutely no surprise that you avoid addressing the historical fact that Locke’s substratum disappeared from the ongoing drama of philosophy once the philosopher Berkeley subjected it to empirical methods and found it wanting.


How do you substantiate that in the first place? Nevertheless, all argument of popularity should be treated as the bad arguments they are. Historically, materialism is the first reaction, the first maturation, and the first rebellion against spiritual beliefs of our religious background (insert any teleological beliefs of the nature of things, like animism). Yet it is also disingenuous to imply that it is a well-defined group of doctrines, a specific thesis. There are no observational or analytical methods of establishing the truth or falsity of materialism. You read that right- NONE.


Metaphysics continue to elude your grasp, o Primal. The doctrine of materialism is a metaphysical one, while science isn’t – it is based on empirical suppositions about a state of affairs. It neither posits a metaphysical doctrine nor does it deny the ontological nature of anything. One may be an idealist and practice science quite perfectly.

As usual, you see things in black and white, and continue to produce fallacious arguments of that stripe. Transcendentalism (whatever that is) is not opposed to ‘materialism,’ nor is it necessarily affiliated with supernaturalism of any type.


I’m sure name-calling is sufficient for argumentation in your book, no question. Keith has demonstrated in this thread to be unable to comment on any of the points I have raised beyond pseudo-philosophical posturing, and neither have you, so i'm not holding my breath.
~Transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

Kantian

Is that your opinion? Or do you have real knowledge of a relativist behaving in this manner?
Unless the relativist debates with another relativist and they both cannot get pass the utter inanity of it all?
That’s not quite correct. Theists are foundationalists, for the most part. Foundationalism is derived from theism, which is the belief that some sort of ground guarantees the truth or correct method of gaining knowledge. Atheists among us who suppose a foundation is necessary have not gotten over the death of God. The failure to converse a true debate with a theist is merely the difference in vocabulary.
I wonder if you really know a relativist, or you are inventing a straw person for the purposes of ridicule.
~transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

Keith Russell

Kantian, one more time, 'cause you've missed it thus far:

You're defending relativism by claiming that it is the belief that "...all points of view are equally true...", when with the same breath you claim that "...the relativist may go about his private business, with the belief that his truths are not transcendental truths applicable to all people.

Keith, earlier: Any other judgment would alter the relativist assumption, would have to begin with the notion that all viewpoints are not equally teue.

To which Kantian replied:
"False."

Keith: How can my view be 'false', my dear Kantian, if "...all points of view are equally true..."?

This is a clear contradiction, which I've pointed out to you at least once before.

The evidence of your own words speaks for itself. That you deny the evidence I cannot describe in any other fashion that to say 'irrational'.

Keith.

John Page

Keith:

Because its Kantians view of your view! i.e. To you, your view is still subjectively true. To him, his view that your view is false (to him) is still subjectively true (to him).

Of course, this is just my view....

Cheers, John