DeanWCasa

I think metaphysical naturalism is an epistemological consideration. Therefore, if we know our method of knowing, and this is primary to ourselves in terms of survival and functioning, metaphysically we value existence as it is--ascribing meaning to what we can understand. The value here is the value of understanding reality, and this suffices--and is the only legitimate way--to bolster human values. I think it was Ayn Rand who said: "The great treason of the philosophers was that they had failed to provide a rational code of morality for a rational society." The question here about metaphysical naturalism implying no value is typical of ethics which are founded in an irrational metaphysics, where there is hardly any epistemic consideration or where consideration is secondary, hence modern religions' view of science.

I take it that epistemology and metaphysics go hand and hand and are the back bone of ethics. Epistemology should be defined explicitly and dictate one's metaphysics accordingly. If I know that I can know through sensory integration and logical inference, this conveys the sense that existence is what it should be, and anything in opposition or different to this should be considered a threat to my method of knowing (my only asset or tool in life). The argument against irrational (supernatural, religious) metaphysics is that it places reality in a context that defies man's method of knowing, and upsets what would otherwise have been a strict adherence and emphasis on man's primacy-asset, which happens to find itself in the religious context and subsequently on shaky grounds. Ethics, logically, must come next, and with epistemology unseated and subjugated by a dominant religious metaphysics, irrationality takes over, i.e. where ethics becomes arbitrary, conventional, tied to emotional-value-judgements and feelings unattached to rationality, logic, science.

In contradistinction, a harmony between metaphysics and epistemology, where each complement one another, where both are affirmed as primary, influence ethics rationally, since ethical considerations are then made in terms of this-world and for the requirements of this-mind. What is created are rational values, an ethics that guides us according to the facts of reality and our way of discerning them.

DeanWCasa
Out

Clutch

Chip, maybe you should start again with an actual argument. Ie, something that starts with the premise, "Metaphysical naturalism is true", and ends with the conclusion "Nothing has any meaning", or "The is no universally consistent morality", or whatever -- being especially sure to explain what these phrases mean, and what rational force they are supposed to bear.

In the absence of any such explanation, and in the absence of any such argument, it is hard to see what the point of the thread is.

Chip

With the references cited, I am now involved in some reading and research. I don't feel that it would be right to comment much until I make an honest effort at such a perusal of the offered links.

I did come to perhaps a more concise understanding of my motivations for this thread:

"Some feel that life is but a joke"
Bob Dylan, "All Along the Watch Tower"

I am a humanist, perhaps a secular transhumanist. I have much skepticism to relatively complex terms that do not succumb to Occam's razor in their definition. Seems there are just so many ways to hide the non-humanist sociopathic existential stance that may seek to degrade any conversation, finding that ultimately, everything is pointless. I just wonder if these terms, "metaphysical naturalism" and "moral relativism" may just be a smoke screen for "business as usual," "how to stop worrying and love the bomb" or aligning into a power faction and equating success with the ability to conquer, belittle and destroy.

I have much to consider now and thank you all for the info. Dr. Retard, I apologize if I jumped too quick to discount your offering. I will look it over again and with the other things I have to look into now, hope to get back with a more respectful reply before the close of this week.

Thanks, Chip

MadMordigan

Seems there are just so many ways to hide the non-humanist sociopathic existential stance that may seek to degrade any conversation, finding that ultimately, everything is pointless.

Is it not possible that, in fact, everything IS pointless? If there are so many ways to justify this conclusion, could this be evidence that this is accurate?

Kharakov

You are missing the whole point of the non-humanist sociopathic existential stance- it's refreshing, brings new life into the conversation.

Chip

Chip: "Yes. Has me wondering if MN has any utility."
Dr. Retard: “Chip's reply seems nuts. After all:
(1) You can't get "MN has no utility" from "MN says nothing about the meaning of the universe". This is a pure non sequitur. Here's a parody: mathematics says nothing about the meaning of the universe, therefore mathematics has no utility. Why in the world would anyone doubt the utility of some theory or domain of knowledge, just because it says nothing about the meaning of the universe?”
End Quote.

A parody is not an analogy. It is spin, pointed obfuscation meant to belittle and ridicule. Right here I declare a right to stop reading or responding to anything you have to offer, Dr. Retard. Besides starting out with a character slur, in suggesting and allowing the inference that I was nuts, you go and blatantly offer a parody as your number one reason. Here’s what I’ll do. I’ll respond to the rest of this post but if you can’t avoid stooping to ridicule and rudeness, don’t expect any more replies from me.

Dr. Retard: “(2) I'd like to know what "MN has utility" means, since this is the proposition being doubted. How can a metaphysical thesis have utility? The most obvious way is that it successfully explains our observations, time and time again -- explanatory utility. Or perhaps it allows us to make successful predictions -- predictive utility. Perhaps it successfully synthesizes our other beliefs -- this would be something like utility of coherence. These are the classic ways in which theories have utility. But MN passes all these tests. So why doubt its utility? Maybe the sense of "utility" used is something like "X has utility iff X implies all sorts of interesting things about the meaning of the universe." But if that's the sense at issue, who cares whether MN has utility?”
End Quote.

I have survived almost half of a century without the use of the terms “metaphysical naturalism” and I see no reason, still, to attribute usefulness to the concept. Metaphysical naturalism does have an aspect of double speak about it. Take the definition of each word alone and attempt to find the meta-definition from those. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t make sense. The simplest interpretation is of something that sounds like an oxymoron. You have to research further to find that it is a platform of some that equates to non-belief in gods or the supernatural. But it’s Occam’s razor interpretation equates to being the opposite belief, naturalism can only be justified through ascription to god or gods and the supernatural. These are arguably metaphysical concepts.

Dr. Retard: “(3) The ultimate question is not "Does MN have utility?" but "Is MN true?" Now, in the first sense proposed above, a theory's utility does serve as (defeasible) justification for believing its truth. If a theory passes those tests, thereby besting all rival theories, then it seems we should believe it. But just because a theory lacks utility doesn't make it false. It just raises the question of why we should believe in it. Of course, this is irrelevant to metaphysical naturalism, since, as noted above, it passes the tests and consequently has utility. Of course, it lacks utility in the second proposed sense above, the 'meaning-of-the-universe-relevance' sense. But whether something has utility in this sense is a matter that has nothing to do with whether it is true or false, or even whether we should believe it.”
End Quote.

Defeasible? Why throw that in there? Are you trying to impress with the use of a little used word? If so, why not use it in a way that makes sense? You did not note or post any data, references, or citations supporting your claim “it passes the tests and consequently has utility.” Noting your own reference to this claim that originally is without supporting arguments or data is no argument. This is common practice in the black-ops area of propaganda and it just does not work for any one who takes the time and effort to look thoroughly.

All three numbered points of yours totally fail at sharing anything of relevance in my eyes. It causes me to question your motives. Why are you so adamant in your defense of a concept that you can find recourse to such nonsense?

Dr. Retard: “The idea of moral relativism is that the only REAL moralities are those existing in cultural practices, personal affections, and the like. I'll focus on cultural relativism. Cultural relativism says that there's no sense in which one cultural practice is better than another, since "better" is necessarily indexed to cultural practices. What makes a behavior moral is just like what makes a behavior legal -- it all turns on how a culture's people tend to regard that behavior, or treat that behavior.”
End Quote.

So, no need to mention or consider our biological heritage? I find the biosphere to be more of a valid concept of culture than any of the phenotypic, linguistic and belief affiliations or distinctions that are commonly prescribed to as “culture.” But then, redefining the contents of this thread seems to be the only methodology you can use to find categorical denial and, basically, a non-communicative confrontational stance to this thread’s topic.

As far as the statements you offer as ambiguous, they are basically the same statement with no ambiguity at all unless you are attacking the basic exposition on supposed technicalities, the attack more worthy than the validity of your arguments. Your offered dialogue takes my statement “People who consider themselves as thinking representatives of life may come to the conclusion that they shouldn't negate or deny the value of their own foundation” and you jump on the word “shouldn’t” again not addressing the points but harping on a detail that isn’t even offered as a postulated certainty.

I apologize for assuming that your statement “This is a pointless dialogue” applied to this entire thread rather than your spin of the intent of a particular statement. Starting to read your post just made me feel disgusted that you could not adhere to logic, reason or courtesy so I just skimmed the rest very lightly at first as I found it very possibly did not merit any serious consideration. Well, I hereby have given it serious consideration and I have to conclude with my first assessment. You have nothing of any merit to offer here so far. In fact, you are supporting my findings that metaphysical naturalism and moral relativism may be ends that facilitate forsaking means.

If II was acting like a church, I’d say from your rude and irrational discourse that you are exhibiting the characteristics of a true believer. Your faith needs no reason. Your arguments have no weight. You can probably spew much of the same unstructured gobbledeegook ad naseum in defense of your beliefs.

I have to agree, you have been educated stupid. I suggest you attempt to find new education, designed around critical thinking and cooperative, congenial methods of discourse, not only in how you address another but also maybe in how you think and use your brain.

BTW, the word “indexical” is an adjective. If your use of uncommon terms is meant to impress, you should attempt to use them correctly otherwise, it makes you look like a fool.
I really don’t see much coming of any discussion with you, Dr. Retard, on this subject.

I’m still looking into other communications on this thread and hope to offer some comment in short order.

Thank you for your patience, Chip

Dr. Retard

I have a most important matter to clear up:

<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=indexical" target="_blank">http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=indexical</a>

<a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=indexical" target="_blank">http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=indexical</a>

<a href="http://www.bartleby.com/61/9/I0100987.html" target="_blank">http://www.bartleby.com/61/9/I0100987.html</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1575862697/104-1278690-3399118" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1575862697/104-1278690-3399118</a>

My use of philosophical terms isn't meant so much to impress as to discuss philosophy.

In the words of a kid in the Olsen twins sitcom "Two of a Kind", "Ooooh, check the in yo' face disgrace".

Dr. Retard

In philosophy, when you give an obviously bad argument, meant to mirror another argument, and thereby show that the other argument is similarly bad, that is called a parody. If you don't believe me, go to Google and type in "gaunilo parody". You will learn about a famous parody argument, offered by a monk named Gaunilo to rebut an argument for God's existence by Saint Anselm. Parody arguments are not instrinsically rude or combative; they are merely a plain way of responding to arguments. If you don't believe me, look to Saint Anselm's response to Gaunilo. At the end, he writes:

"I thank you for your kindness both in your blame and in your praise for my book. For since you have commended so generously those parts of it which seem to you worthy of acceptance, it is quite evident that you have criticised in no unkind spirit those parts of it which seemed to you weak."

If Gaunilo's famous parody were a means of ridicule and rudeness, then I doubt Anselm would have overlooked it, being the intelligent thinker he was. If you still believe that parodies are instrinsically rude, then you will hopefully have that belief corrected by experience, in discussing and reading philosophy.

And it's a good thing you declared your right to stop reading. Otherwise, I would have had my team of ninjas bust in your house and glue your eyes to the screen. Another victory for justice, I suppose.

I don't know what any of this means. (Note that I don't say it's senseless; I just say I don't know what it means). Metaphysical naturalism is a metaphysical theory because it's an ontological theory, a theory about what exists. It says that the only things that exist are the things that we've found to obey natural laws -- the material things described by physics -- and, moreover, that everything obeys natural laws. This rules out supernatural deities, who would stand outside of natural law and indeed control it. It's arguable whether metaphysical naturalism can accomodate 'harmless' abstractions like propositions, numbers, properties, and, for that matter, laws. Maybe this helps.

I threw in the word because it helped express the point I was making. Not every word choice has a secret agenda. My use of "defeasible" did not betray my participation in a worldwide cabal. And in fact I did use it in a way that makes sense. A "defeasible justification" is a justification that, though it doesn't by itself entail justification, is enough to secure justification so long as there are no "defeaters" (e.g., counter-evidence) for that justification. This is the language of philosophical epistemology. I'm sorry that you don't understand it, and I'd gladly explain it, were you not poised to deny the sense of every new word you encounter. I didn't post any data, etc. because I thought the success of metaphysical naturalism a rather foregone conclusion. I don't know anyone who disagrees with it, even the most committed supernaturalists. Do you agree that science is successful (in this sense)? If so, then we should agree about metaphysical naturalism, because science has a tendency to assume metaphysical naturalism. Some say that this is a purely pragmatic assumption, revisable in the face of further evidence. Others say that it is part and parcel of the scientific enterprise. In any case, the success ("utility") of science entails the success of metaphysical naturalism, for this reason.

You got me. Posting messages on meta-ethics to the IIDB forum is part of an intricate scheme to kidnap Commissioner Gordon. You've bested me again, Batman.

I don't have any problem with accepting the sort of biological relativism you suggest as a theory worth considering. The fact that I didn't mention it means only that I didn't mention it. There are other theories I could've mentioned, but didn't. That doesn't reaffirm my non-communicative confrontational stance. That reaffirms my stance towards eating lunch instead of writing the most comprehensive IIDB post ever.

So, is it true? Are you really Gene Ray, the World's Greatest Thinker? (www.timecube.com)

You're a TimeCube traveler,
but you are educated stupid.
Your Character is cornered,
4-corner head, 1-corner face,
4-corner life metamorphosis.
Family is a 4-corner rotation,
mother, father, son, daughter.
Life rotation debunks Trinity.
Academic cubelessness is evil.

Finally, I wouldn't resort to ridicule if you weren't deserving of it. Your original post ("ideology", "intellectual suicide and psychological murder", "church of metaphysical naturalism") had all the telltale signs of aimless inflammatory rhetoric, and your other posts have sustained the trend. The best way to get respectful responses is to start out being respectful. Otherwise, prepare for spleen and invective.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Retard ]</p>

Chip

Jeff, I researched the links you gave me as thoroughly as I could. If these are people who are objective moralists then I must stand with my opinion that there is no such thing. The first had references to Western culture or civilization and I find such to be solely subjective. Others came close to attempting to figure out whether there might be any absolute morality concept but seemed to bog down in semantics. I don't trust experts just because they hold positions at universties. From the posts that were made here by others and elsewhere in IIDB that are basically crass and without supporting reference, I find direct confirmation of what I get at with this thread, metaphysical naturalism can and often is just a position that is meant to obfuscate, intimidate with its double-speak interpretation and generally serve to justify worthless banter.

As of the last couple of weeks I've been spending less and less time at this site and expect that I will spend even less as time goes by. There are people who are concerned for the welfare of themselves, humanity and life in general and discussion with them is where I can more fruitfully share my observations.

Regards, Chip

Beoran

As I said in anther thread: what is the meaning of water? It just flows and runs, but does it have a meaning? If water is then meaningless, does that means it has no value? Would you throw away your water in the desert? "The highest virtue is like water."