Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Goliath · 12-19-2002, 10:28 AM

Ojuice,

Your definition of metaphysical naturalist is incorrect. A metaphysical naturalist is one who believes that nothing supernatural exists. I hold no beliefs regarding the existence of anything supernatural, therefore I am not a metaphysical naturalist.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Jayhawker Soule · 12-19-2002, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ojuice5001:
Goliath and ReasonableDoubt,

It's the definition of "metaphysical naturalist" that I'm using, all right?

No. It is not in the least all right.

Ojuice5001 · 12-19-2002, 10:30 AM

If I wanted to argue over definitions, I'd talk to my brother, who is in town for Christmas. This thread is about the relations of naturalism and supernaturalism circa 50,000 BCE.

Jayhawker Soule · 12-19-2002, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ojuice5001:
If I wanted to argue over definitions, I'd talk to my brother, who is in town for Christmas. This thread is about the relations of naturalism and supernaturalism circa 50,000 BCE.

Bacteria are naturalist, by which I mean very, very tiny.
Skunks, on the other hand, are supernaturalists, by which I mean having a striped tail.
Therefore, Ojuice5001 is absurd, by which I mean neither very, very tiny nor possessing a striped tail.

Ojuice5001 · 12-19-2002, 10:40 AM

ReasonableDoubt,

I started a new thread for the question, What is a metaphysical naturalist? Go to it.

Jayhawker Soule · 12-19-2002, 10:44 AM

Sorry, I don't take orders from the absurd.

Kantian · 12-19-2002, 11:08 AM

Ojuice5001
Your first premise is not simply incorrect, it is logically incorrect.

If you are equating metaphysical naturalists with all warm-blooded creatures, that means every single mammal and bird holds a complicated philosophical doctrine. Even if you managed to bend your mind around this concept, you'd have a difficult time convincing anyone that a tiny subset of "warm-blooded creatures," i.e. humans were ALL metaphysical naturalists.

That would indicate an analytic statement, that warm-blooded creatures are by definition metaphysical naturalists, and that is logically false, because it is a specific and technical framework of human beliefs.

Why don't you defend this premise?

~Radical subjectivist~

Jayhawker Soule · 12-19-2002, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kantian:
If you are equating metaphysical naturalists with all warm-blooded creatures, that means every single mammal and bird holds a complicated philosophical doctrine.

Nor is there any reason to limit this community to the warm-blooded - the most primitive awareness will suffice. It's absurd's little world populated mostly by single-celled empiricists.

Goliath · 12-19-2002, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ojuice5001:
If I wanted to argue over definitions, I'd talk to my brother, who is in town for Christmas. This thread is about the relations of naturalism and supernaturalism circa 50,000 BCE.

Regardless, I am a living counterexample to your premise 1, and your argument still fails.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Ojuice5001 · 12-19-2002, 12:43 PM

The argument works fine if you replace "metaphysical naturalist" with "do not believe in the supernatural." I will edit the original post to say this. The edited post will, as I have said, not lose any validity, and it will gain a definition that is closer to what's normally meant by "metaphysical naturalist."

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

12-19-2002, 10:28 AM	#11
Goliath Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Fargo, ND, USA Posts: 1,849	Ojuice, Your definition of metaphysical naturalist is incorrect. A metaphysical naturalist is one who believes that nothing supernatural exists. I hold no beliefs regarding the existence of anything supernatural, therefore I am not a metaphysical naturalist. Sincerely, Goliath

12-19-2002, 10:30 AM	#13
Ojuice5001 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A city in Florida that I love Posts: 3,416	If I wanted to argue over definitions, I'd talk to my brother, who is in town for Christmas. This thread is about the relations of naturalism and supernaturalism circa 50,000 BCE.

12-19-2002, 10:40 AM	#15
Ojuice5001 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A city in Florida that I love Posts: 3,416	ReasonableDoubt, I started a new thread for the question, What is a metaphysical naturalist? Go to it.

12-19-2002, 10:44 AM	#16
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	Sorry, I don't take orders from the absurd.

12-19-2002, 11:08 AM	#17
Kantian Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Konigsberg Posts: 238	Ojuice5001 Your first premise is not simply incorrect, it is logically incorrect. If you are equating metaphysical naturalists with all warm-blooded creatures, that means every single mammal and bird holds a complicated philosophical doctrine. Even if you managed to bend your mind around this concept, you'd have a difficult time convincing anyone that a tiny subset of "warm-blooded creatures," i.e. humans were ALL metaphysical naturalists. That would indicate an analytic statement, that warm-blooded creatures are by definition metaphysical naturalists, and that is logically false, because it is a specific and technical framework of human beliefs. Why don't you defend this premise? ~Radical subjectivist~

12-19-2002, 12:43 PM	#20
Ojuice5001 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A city in Florida that I love Posts: 3,416	The argument works fine if you replace "metaphysical naturalist" with "do not believe in the supernatural." I will edit the original post to say this. The edited post will, as I have said, not lose any validity, and it will gain a definition that is closer to what's normally meant by "metaphysical naturalist."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.