Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith Russell · 01-21-2003, 01:39 PM

Capn:

We kind of agree, but I don't see how you can say that relativism would work in a perfect world, unless you are defining a 'perfect world' as one in which relativism would work.

Given that a perfect world does not exist, you can know nothing about it, including whether or not relativism would work there.

Keith.

Primal · 01-21-2003, 01:57 PM

Well Mr. ~Transcedentalist~ I still see that at least half of your argument consists of smilies. Good graohics

But poor form.

Quote:

How do you substantiate that in the first place? Nevertheless, all argument of popularity should be treated as the bad arguments they are.

LOL. Not when the issue is on whether or not the viewpoint has any adherents......

Quote:

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.

I read you right and you are wrong. Materialism provides the best working model to date. Idealism sinks into supernaturalism or solipsism. Pluralisms violate Occam's Razor. This leaves only materialism as the contender no matter how dogmatically and how largely you assert otherwise. (Notice how Kant dismisses the "argument from popularity" and then uses an argument from authority.)

Quote:

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.

I doubt that. In any event, though philosophy is separate from science, I believe it best to have philosophy informed by and compatible with science. There doesn't have to be some impassable barrier between the two.

Quote:

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.

Actually if we are speaking of the Kantian dualism or the beliefs of american transcedentalists/spiritualists like Walt Whitman, it very much is.

Quote:

I?m sure name-calling is sufficient for argumentation in your book, no question.

Oh quote crapping out of your mouth! You do nothing but insult, degrade your opppnents etc. But when you recieve the teeny,tiniest, little insult it's "ad hominid". Seriously be willing to take what you dish out.

Quote:

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.

Basically because you haven't made any points worth commenting on. You merely put in a lot of

s and think you've "won". Now THAT is pseudo-philosophical posturing had I ever seen it.

Primal · 01-21-2003, 02:04 PM

LOL. Just noticed how Kantian bemoaned name calling "oh whoas me" and then shortly afterwards called "99%" a "chief big Objectivist". Seems like Kantian can't get past the floor play and into the flat out name-calling, perhaps its "fixation."

Quote:

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.

This is complete and utter BS. There are theist constructivists and relativists as well Kantian. As well as Transcadentalists(like Immanuel Kant btw).Your picture is too simplistic and neglects the fact that foundationalism does not necessarily rely on theism and in fact any attempt to do so result in question begging and non sequitur. In fact if you ask me, I think a rational foundationalism provides the best case against spurrious theisms. Stop seeing things in such black and white terms Kant.

capnkirk · 01-21-2003, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell
Capn:

We kind of agree, but I don't see how you can say that relativism would work in a perfect world, unless you are defining a 'perfect world' as one in which relativism would work.

Given that a perfect world does not exist, you can know nothing about it, including whether or not relativism would work there.

Keith.

Since the characterization of relativism in a perfect world is "perfectly" moot. Let's just let it go at that.

Suffice it to say that I was specifically attempting to remove the ability of relativism to work as a compass to an utterly inaccessible place.

Primal · 01-21-2003, 02:09 PM

Quote:

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).

Yes John, here I agree. But that still makes Kant irrational.Kant's position is stlll self-refuting whether he admits it or not. If I make a non sequitur, it does not cease to be a non sequitur merely cause I do not will it so.

Hugo Holbling · 01-21-2003, 02:11 PM

I'd like to ask for this thread to be closed. I'm sorry i ever started it.

Primal · 01-21-2003, 02:13 PM

Quote:

I ask this because if we can establish through this example that there are situations under which one's viewpoint and beliefs can be shown to be erroneous, then isn't the foundationalists task one of finding a way to build on this axiom to less distinct areas?

Adrian here you are very right, foundationalist axioms should never be found to be wrong, for if they are then they aren't really axiomic(since they've been discredited by a higher standard). However not all foundationalist knowledge is limited to axioms, and thus as one gets farther one can intoduce the the concept of provisional/self-correcting knowledge. And hence a firm basis for science and reason.

Primal · 01-21-2003, 02:15 PM

That's your arbitrary "opinion". I don't believe you are sorry. Perhaps me and Keith can reach an intersubjective agreement on the matter.

NialScorva · 01-21-2003, 02:36 PM

What I find truly odd is that as far as I can tell, any form of objectivism is based on the assumption that we can transcend our senses and perspectives to know that there exists something more than a correlation. Though I do not agree with Kantian that it is descended from theism directly, it is without a doubt more closely related to theism, mysticism, platonism, and foundationalism than it is to any form of empiricism or metaphysical naturalism. In fact, I am convinced that empricism and metaphysical naturalism are contradictory to ontological objectivism. I won't even get into how badly screwed up moral objectivism is.

I've always thought that the cave allegory was the best argument *against* platonism and objectivism. We have the perceptions of the shadows, but we can only *assume* that there's something casting them. We cannot turn around. We cannot leave the cave. The shadows are all we have. Not only that, but we are all in our own cave, with different angles on the shadows and walls with different bumps and corners to distort the shadows. There is a high correlation between the shadows in each cave, and it's definately not a bad thing to assume that the same thing is casting the shadows in each cave, but we do have to realize that the shadows are *not* identical.

In my opinion, that is what relativism is. It's a acknowledgement of our imprecise perceptions, our imprecise communications, and our imprecise ability for self-assessment. Relativism means that instead of saying "You are wrong", you have to say "Your position is self-contradictory". Relativism means that instead of saying "This is True", one must say "This is True given preconditions X, assumptions Y, and within the context of Z." Objectivism is a shortcut, and while it works in the simple cases, it can bite you on the ass when the error is in your assumptions.

I based upon the arguments so far in this thread and what I've seen in the past, objectivism seems to be a trump card played to declare one's set of assumptions as completely correct and declare victory without doing the hard work of understanding the problem from every angle. Not meant to be flame bait, just my opinion.

Primal · 01-21-2003, 04:38 PM

You are correct empiricism is at a fundametal level incompatible with objectivism and metaphysical naturalism. Which is why I'm not an empiricist. I am a rationalist who believes we arrive at objectivism through reason, i.e. mental tendencies. Liebniz first proposed this, comparing it to a block where some parts were easier to chisel then others until a figure was made. That doesn't mean I think we are born with "ideas" in our heads, just that our mind is structured to interpret data a certain way.

And in the end empiricism does not end up in relativism though, but in perceptionism and idealism. Since relativism must even deny the validity or the senses.

We come to different conclusions though as I see this as a reason, among others, to reject empricism not metaphysical naturalism.

Another problem is how is the mind tabula rasa? If it was really a "blank slate" how do we attain or make sense of sense experience in the first place? Or make inference?

Charles Darwin:

Quote:

bout thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorize; and well I remember someone saying that it this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colors. How odd is it that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service?

01-21-2003, 02:11 PM	#76
Hugo Holbling Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Self-banned in 2005 Posts: 1,344	Please end it... I'd like to ask for this thread to be closed. I'm sorry i ever started it.

01-21-2003, 02:15 PM	#78
Primal Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Marcos Posts: 551	Hugo That's your arbitrary "opinion". I don't believe you are sorry. Perhaps me and Keith can reach an intersubjective agreement on the matter.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-21-2003, 01:39 PM	#71
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Capn: We kind of agree, but I don't see how you can say that relativism would work in a perfect world, unless you are defining a 'perfect world' as one in which relativism would work. Given that a perfect world does not exist, you can know nothing about it, including whether or not relativism would work there. Keith.

01-21-2003, 02:36 PM	#79
NialScorva Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Median strip of DC beltway Posts: 1,888	What I find truly odd is that as far as I can tell, any form of objectivism is based on the assumption that we can transcend our senses and perspectives to know that there exists something more than a correlation. Though I do not agree with Kantian that it is descended from theism directly, it is without a doubt more closely related to theism, mysticism, platonism, and foundationalism than it is to any form of empiricism or metaphysical naturalism. In fact, I am convinced that empricism and metaphysical naturalism are contradictory to ontological objectivism. I won't even get into how badly screwed up moral objectivism is. I've always thought that the cave allegory was the best argument against platonism and objectivism. We have the perceptions of the shadows, but we can only assume that there's something casting them. We cannot turn around. We cannot leave the cave. The shadows are all we have. Not only that, but we are all in our own cave, with different angles on the shadows and walls with different bumps and corners to distort the shadows. There is a high correlation between the shadows in each cave, and it's definately not a bad thing to assume that the same thing is casting the shadows in each cave, but we do have to realize that the shadows are not identical. In my opinion, that is what relativism is. It's a acknowledgement of our imprecise perceptions, our imprecise communications, and our imprecise ability for self-assessment. Relativism means that instead of saying "You are wrong", you have to say "Your position is self-contradictory". Relativism means that instead of saying "This is True", one must say "This is True given preconditions X, assumptions Y, and within the context of Z." Objectivism is a shortcut, and while it works in the simple cases, it can bite you on the ass when the error is in your assumptions. I based upon the arguments so far in this thread and what I've seen in the past, objectivism seems to be a trump card played to declare one's set of assumptions as completely correct and declare victory without doing the hard work of understanding the problem from every angle. Not meant to be flame bait, just my opinion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.