kennyminot

SeaKayaker -

For a high school student, you use lots and lots of big words. I am a senior in college, and I don't use lots and lots of big words. I have a limited vocabulary. Let me tell you, in advance, before you get bedazzled with philosophy, that those big words don't lead to fantastic discoveries. They might land you an excellent job at a big university, where you can discuss 'important' issues with other people that know lots and lots of big words. But that's about it. You are not going to discover the key to reality from big words. You are not going to unlock the secret of happiness. But you can find them in sex. The history of philosophy can be summed up in this way:

(1) Person A who does not have sex: "Can you even apply Modus Ponens? It is so obvious that premise A does not lead to conclusion B! You have performed such a terrible Non Sequitur that I must laugh at your stupidity! Haha! Now let me publish an essay in the Philosophical Review so everyone can laugh with me!"

Translation: "You suck! Kiss my butt! I like Cheerios better than Frosted Flakes! You think you are smart?! You think you can ruin my precious career? Well, tough cookies! You can just die!"

(2) Person B who does not have sex: "Let me examine the assumptions of your position. First, you are assuming that mental events are non-spatial entities. But based on the premises of my overly elaborate argument, it is obvious that they must have some sort of spatial relationship with the brain. And my premises are better than your premises. So therefore . . ."

Translation: "Your ideas suck! I like mine better! And beliefs are really important! Die! Do you wanna fight? Wait, I might hurt my precious knuckles! So let's just engage in this disguised variation of the masculine sword duel! Let me stab you in the thorax with my linguistic sword thrusts!"

Did I say that? I am such a naughty boy!

On to your argument:

[Many people argue that it is impossible to know anything beyond human consciousness, but I have yet to see a person live that way.]

Maybe you should read some of the more sophisticated arguments for postmodernism. Here is a brief list of true statements about my beliefs:

(1) Some people commit suicide.

(2) People have no contact with an 'ultimate' reality. People see, believe, and feel, but none of these qualities establish a one-to-one relationship with anything 'outside' the mind. People have an 'illusion' of ultimacy, a delusion of something 'beyond' the mind, because they share cultural habits with other people in the community. But these 'habits' are not something that provide an absolute justification for the supremecy of your beliefs. So you don't have an argument for the truth of Christianity. You have a rhetorical trick. A collection of words organized into a standardized pattern, intended to convince people that you write about something indubitable and true.

(3) None of my beliefs are true. Feel free to believe them. If you want. I make no pretensions to ideological supremecy.

(4) Dadism rules!

<---> Christianity is not a philosophical system. How many Christians read Aquinas? How many study epistemology or metaphysics? These are inventions of philosophers. Unlike the other monotheisitic religions, such as Judaism and Islam, Christians have always fooled themselves into believing that philosophy was important. They wanted to believe that it gave them exclusive access to the Absolute Validity of their worldview. But Judaism and Islam started by asserting that 'philosophy' subverted the tenants of their religion. They were right. Platonism was different than Islam. They were not the same. (And let's not talk about Aristotle! Talk about subversive!) Monotheism started without philosophical foundations, and it will continue without them in the future.<--->

Gotta go! Need to work!

Peace out.
Kennie Smith

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: kennyminot ]</p>

Keith Russell

Kenny said:
None of my beliefs are true.

Well, I've always said that subjetivism (of which Postmodernism is a subset) is self-defeating.

At least you were honest enough to admit it...

LOL.

Keith.

SeaKayaker

Beoram,
Thanks for your comments from a different perspective on this issue. You say that, You seem to be saying that reality is, at heart, one. Unity is ultimate and diversity is simply an illusion. However, in my thesis I claim that this leads to the destruction of all knowledge (q.v. below).

Basically, I am claiming that, if you are right, knowledge, science, and logic become meaningless. Seeing the value of these aspects of human life, I take that as a reducio to demonstrate the impossibility of this claim. Do you see another way of looking at this issue that would counter this critique?

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

Beoran

SeayKayaker: You seem to be saying that reality is, at heart, one. Unity is ultimate and diversity is simply an illusion. However, in my thesis I claim that this leads to the destruction of all knowledge (q.v. below).

Beoran: That is not quite what I wanted to say. Reality simply exists. "Unity" and "diversity" are names we give to certain ways we see and experience things in the universe. Neither way of seeing things is "ultimate" nor "illusionary". Both points of view simply lead to different kind of knowledge.

Can you see the difference between the name of a thing and the thing itself? Do all names correspond to something in visible reality? Or are there names that exist in our minds alone? Can you show me a table, a rock, or a human? But, can you show me a "diversity", a "unity", a "knowledge"? And where do all these names come from? Did the words we use come falling fom the sky? Or did we humans construct them ourselves?

Seakayaker: /snip Long quote of paper.

Beoran: Let me quote part of chapter 81 of the TTC:
I always regard philosophy as a search for wisdom, not a search for words. To say it in the words of Brian Clevinger of the 8 bit theater : "Less talkie, more cookie!"


SeaKayaker: Basically, I am claiming that, if you are right, knowledge, science, and logic become meaningless. Seeing the value of these aspects of human life, I take that as a reducio to demonstrate the impossibility of this claim. Do you see another way of looking at this issue that would counter this critique?

Beoran: Did you ever ask the sun, or a stone, or to ant, or a whale what the meaning is of "right", "knowledge", "science" and "logic"? A star exists for billion of years, and is billions of times larger than we are, But does it know or "right" or "knowledge"? Then, where lies the meaning of "right", "knowledge" and "science"?

What is the meaning of water? It flows and runs, and is of use to all living things, but does it have a meaning? Does water then have no goal and no meaning? Still, would a woman in the desert throw away her drinking water? Would she think: "Water exists without meaning, so it is worthless to me. I'd best throw mine away" ? Is water then valuable regardless of it's lack of meaning?

"The greatest virtue is like water." Our cup is yet full of it. Don't throw it away. ^_^

seanie

SeaKayaker

I'm not sure I recognise the philosophical dilemma you pose, however I think your use of Hitler and the French revolution as examples of these philosophies taken to extremes is flawed.

You're claiming that the death and suffering in each period was due to Hitler believing in the ultimacy of the one and the French Revolutionaries believing in the ultimacy of the many.

For Hitler his country was supreme and this justified the slaughter of millions. His country was the 'one'. OK. I can see that line of argument. However what is a country? Amongst other things it's a collection of 'many' people. Its equally possible to view the slaughter of the socialists, communists, Jews and Gypsies as motivated in the interests of the 'many'. Germany would be better without them. The people of Germany would be better without them. The needs of the 'many' outweigh the few, or the 'one'. Consequently lots of 'ones' were murdered.

The French revolution was a dramatic social upheaval, a class struggle. The rights of the individual, democracy, equality, liberty were all important motivations. However the bloodiest period of the revolution, 'The Terror' (1793-94), was a period of extreme fear. France was at war with the monarchies of Europe. The Republic was threatened. The state was threatened. The 'one'.

Indeed the Jacobins siezed power declaring a 'republic one and indivisible'. The Committe of Public Safety was set up which directed the slaughter. It was not a break down in law and order because the rights of the individual were held sacrosanct and above the law. It was directed and puposeful (indeed judicial), albeit paranoid and indiscriminate in its victims.

And what of those victims? The rights of the individual were hardly sacrosanct for all those people guillotined now were they?

The motivation could be seen as similar to what I outlined for Hitler's Germany. The Revolution was threatened, the Republic was threatened, France herself was threatened. Action had to be taken against those that imperiled the Revolution. France would be better without them. The people of France would be better without them. The needs of the 'many' outweigh the few, or the 'one'. Consequently lots of 'ones' were murdered.

I find it relatively straightforward to view both historical episodes as sharing a common philosophical core rather than opposing extremes. The needs of the many outweigh the few and the ends justify the means.

As examples of the underlying phlosophical dilemma you're seeking to address I find them confusing at the least.

jpbrooks

Hello Seakayaker,

it's good to have you back in the II forum. I'm sorry about missing your private posts to me on the "Baptist Board". All of my six msntv e-mail boxes are completely filled, so I never know when someone is trying to contact me.

I haven't had time to read your thesis in its entirety, but I'm not certain that it is clear (from your thesis) why the Christian God Himself avoids the problem of "dual ultimacy". That is, it is difficult to see how the "One" of the Christian God can be "ultimate" in the same way and at the same time as the "Many" of that same God. I'm not arguing that your thesis is wrong, but only that God's "dual ultimacy" needs clarification. But perhaps you have already addressed this issue and I have missed it.

In any case, I have to run.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

seanie

Further to my comments on the French revolution I thought this might shed further light on the motivations behind the Terror.

The individual most closely associated with (and perhaps responsible for) the period of slaughter from 1793-94 was Robespierre. On the 5th of February 1793, shortly after the execution of the king, Robespierre gave a speech setting out the aims of the Revolution and how it must be defended. It gives a clear indication of the motives behind the slaughter that was to ensue.

It commences with a declarartion of ideals. Of liberty, equality and justice. A state;

'..wherein the citizen should submit to the magistrate, the magistrate to the people, and the people to justice. Wherein the country assures the welfare of every individual; wherein every individual enjoys with pride the prosperity and glory of his country.'

Noble aims all. He then declares that this is to be achieved through the 'Democratic or Republican government'.

But there's a problem. This democratic impulse is both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the revolution;

'Our force, because it gives us ascendency of truth over imposture, and the rights of public interest over private interest. Our weakness because it rallies against us all the vicious; all those who in their hearts meditate the robbery of the people'.

Then the shadow of impending horror looms;

'We must crush both the interior and exterior enemies of the Republic, or perish with her. And in this situation the first maxim of your policy should be to conduct the people by reason and the enemies of the people by terror. If the spring of popular government during peace is virtue, the spring of popular government in rebellion is at once both virtue and terror; Virtue, without terror is fatal! Terror, without which virtue is powerless! Terror is nothing less than justice, prompt, secure and inflexible!'

The terror was not anarchy. It was a matter of policy, ruthlessly enforced. Nor was it a result of holding the rights of the individual sacrosanct. Remember the Revolution proclaims 'the rights of public interest over private interest'. The welfare of the group outweighs the welfare of the individual. The needs of the many outweigh the few.

For Robespierre 'the people' deserved liberty, democracy, equality, justice and peace. This is what the Revolution offered. However this could only be secured by the survival of the Republican government. And in defence of the Republican government it was necessary to engage in repression, despotism, tyranny, murder and terror. However extreme, the basic principle should be familiar. The ends justify the means. And there are other parallels. Restricting freedom and liberty in defence of freedom and liberty is not uncommon.

This is what motivated the slaughter. A utopian vision of a 'Republic of Virtue'. A shining light. A beacon. So enticing that it compelled the extermination of enemy, rival and friend alike. Anyone who possibly threatened the realisation of the dream. The Revolution was more important than the lives of 30,000 French.

SeaKayaker

Well, I have had an interesting couple of weeks (or week, or however long it has been…), but now to return to this…

Kennie Smith,

Thanks for your reply from yet another very different perspective.

Well, there are two reasons. First, sometimes it is easier to use one big word than five shorter words to convey an idea. Second, and more importantly, I have gotten thumped a few times on this site for using imprecise language, so I try to be as precise as I can be.


Is this a statement of fact or a value judgment? If it is a statement of fact, is it actually true or does it merely reflect your mind (which, by the way, differs from mine and everyone else’s in the universe). If it is a value judgment, what is right or wrong about it?

If you are right, then your argument has no correlation to reality (only to your mind). If this is the case, it cannot be true. If there is no truth or falsity, then why are you arguing on here?

Is this true? If the statement it true then it is false…it is logical nonsense. Why would you seek to spread nonsense?

Taking your earlier statement at its face value, why should I even care about what you say regarding Christianity? If you wish to say that Christianity is not a philosophy, you are making another truth claim.

Well, I have read him several times recently for assignments in school. So, to answer your question, I would say that I know quite a few Christian high school students who have read Aquinas. This does not mean that we agree with him, but we have read him. I actually believe that the Scholastic philosophers, and the Roman Catholic ones in general, had a view of Greek philosophy incompatible with Christianity.

What are philosophical foundations? Since you have already said that your beliefs are not true, why should I accept any definition you offer for them? You seem to be offering even less of a foundation than Christianity.

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

SeaKayaker

JP Brooks,

Nice to see you again, too. It seems to me that you have devised a very effective spamguard on your e-mail accounts.

That is an interesting issue. Since it is a question regarding the internal consistency of Christianity, I can only answer it by an appeal to what Christianity teaches. I would probably have to respond that I do not understand how what I am saying is so, only that I trust that it is true. Some may hear this and say that it proves that Christianity is irrational fideism. However, I would respond that I am fully convinced (deceived, you may say) that I can only preserve reason through faith in the Bible. I think that I either have to maintain human reason under the authority of the Bible or deny it altogether. I am too attached to logic and reason to abrogate it; hence, I will reason under the authority of the Bible.

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

Beoran

Your third option is to stick to reason, but throw out the bible. If you value reason so much, then ultimately, you must dispose of what conflicts with it.