Ubermensch Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 It's not me doing the tarring. It's not even me doing the pointing-out that they've tarred themselves. They --the postmodernist philosophers and the scientists themselves-- are the ones who write the books and publish the papers. It is not that they provide evidence, but when someone says outright "there is no such thing as philosophy," it's hard to take them at anything other than face-value. Like the Cultural Marxists whose books fed the student rebellion in the 60's: it's hard to argue those guys didn't want to destroy America; they did, they said as much, their books were instruction manuals how to do it, and those that acted on them did destructive things. The consensus of the intellectual community is clear and has been for the past century. This is the ugliness of postmodernism: it's ugly, it declares its ugliness very loudly, and it's hard for people to oppose the notion that postmodernism is ugly and loud. The consensus has been so complete and so clear that people find it difficult to conceive of philosophies that are different from those that are accepted by the intellectual community. Altruism, collectivism, mysticism --these are all taken for granted as the gospel truth. We, our parents and grandparents and their parents have lived in a scientific/philosophical environment where "the good" was considered to be equivalent with "self-less-ness," whereas "the evil" was equivalent with "selfishness." We have been "educated" in institutions soaked in postmodernist thought, where everything from politics to ethics to metaphysics to epistemology to the very fact of existence itself is considered to be "subjective" and up to the determination of one's "society" --which means a panel of scientists funded by the government. Every single policy and debate of our day is soaked in the follies and the dichotomies of postmodernism --that is why we have a two-party system: in every given debate, both parties swallow the poison of postmodernism, with the Democrats getting one side of the dichotomy and the Republicans getting the other side. *Giggles* "You clearly haven't put as much thought into this as you'd like to think you have," he says, to me *giggles* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 You do know what 'philosophy' is, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 When someone says "there's no such thing as Philosophy", they're wrong. It doesn't mean all of science has divorced itself from philosophy. I don't see what the destruction of America has to do with this discussion; even as an analogy it's pretty poor. The consensus of the intellectual community is clear and has been for the past century. This is the ugliness of postmodernism: it's ugly, it declares its ugliness very loudly, and it's hard for people to oppose the notion that postmodernism is ugly and loud. If the axiomatic foundations of science didn't come from philosophy, you might have a point. "Post-modernism is bad" is not an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 You seem to prosume that life should have a purpose... Other chemical reactions dont have a purpose other than to balance why should we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 If you assume that things occur because of preceding things, for example apply a force to a block and it accelerates, then we can't have a purpose. We are then only the result of the preceding stuff. On the other hand, if you assume that stuff occurs in order to reach some preordained state, say I live in order to do God's will, then we obviously have a purpose. It really comes down to a question of how causality works. I don't think anyone has a definitive answer as yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 causality? I would be more inclined to relate conciousness to quantum fluctuations. Also i would like to point out on a relgious note that all those people who dont believe in god 'because how can it?' are frankly idiots. Most of the bible did happen; There was a big flood and a guy called noah, there were various plagues around the egyptians etc etc. but i can feel my self coming onto a soapbox irellivant to this thread......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 I'd like to know how you know there was a "guy called Noah" (that being the biblical chap and the events that are described as happening around him, not just any guy called Noah, obviously). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 causality? I would be more inclined to relate conciousness to quantum fluctuations. Ok. This has no supporting argument. It only has a slight, out of context, relationship to one of the words in my post. And it doesn't seem to relate to the thread topic. Also i would like to point out on a relgious note that all those people who dont believe in god 'because how can it?' are frankly idiots. Most of the bible did happen; There was a big flood and a guy called noah, there were various plagues around the egyptians etc etc. but i can feel my self coming onto a soapbox irellivant to this thread......... That the people who wrote the Bible managed to write accounts of what was happening around them isn't any reason to believe that they are an authority on the supernatural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 hmm only an idea i had, not really founded, but if there is a scientific explanation for conciesness i believe we can find it in quantum mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ubermensch Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 You do know what 'philosophy' is, don't you? One thing I enjoyed about college is that the PhD's I talked to never said this kind of thing. Implying your opponent is a moron is not an argument. It doesn't mean all of science has divorced itself from philosophy. Strawman. I am not talking about "all of science." I am not even talking about "all scientists." I am talking about "most scientists." Do not try to evade my point by talking about the conecpt when I am talking about the perception; do not try to evade my point by talking about "all" when I am talking about "most."If the axiomatic foundations of science didn't come from philosophy' date=' you might have a point.[/quote'] Do not confuse "science" with "what scientists call science." My point remains because what I have a problem with is the perceptions of human beings, not the concept itself. "Post-modernism is bad" is not an argument. Again' date=' an attempt to Strawman me. Pity. I miss my professors. #1) "Post modernism is bad" is a value-judgement that is automatic for anyone fond of science or with a fundamental respect for the human mind. IE, human beings, and any academics who might still be human. #2) My actual argument --not the one you have chosen to debate-- is that post-modernism has been accepted by the intellectual community, and that this is a bad thing. You seem to prosume that life should have a purpose... I presume nothing. That my existence has a purpose is a rational belief. All I have to do is answer the question "why" until I hit an axiom. If I were you I'd be more conserned about your own assumptions, specifically the popular post-modernism assumption that life has no purpose. Other chemical reactions dont have a purpose other than to balance why should we? Begging the question. The question you are trying to beg is that our lives "should" have some purpose. I am talking about what is, which is a question conserned with reality. The question is not "should the Sun exist," but "does it." The question is not "should human existence have a purpose," but "does it." The answer to this question is yes. Other chemical reactions do not maintain a consiousness that is aware that it exists, neither is a human being merely the sum of his bodies' chemical reactions. Both these points can be empirically proven. It is at this point that the discussion should segue into epistemology ("how do you know," "how do you prove," etc). Which means I dust off my objectivist epistemology to confront my audience's socially-programmed anti-objectivist (postmodernist) epistemology. And then my original point --that post-modernism's acceptance by scientists is a bad thing-- is proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 hmm only an idea i had, not really founded, but if there is a scientific explanation for conciesness i believe we can find it in quantum mechanics. That's ok, it's just that it had nothing to do with what I was saying, so it was confusing. You're best to look it up and start a new thread on it if you're interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 ebagaa this question is disgustingly unanswerable. Purpose is what you make of it. Just like fate. Well thats all the philosophy i have to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Strawman. I am not talking about "all of science." I am not even talking about "all scientists." I am talking about "most scientists." Do not try to evade my point by talking about the conecpt when I am talking about the perception; do not try to evade my point by talking about "all" when I am talking about "most." I would dispute that very strongly. Granted you have not said the word "all", but neither have you said the word "most". You have been talking about the community being in clear consensus. You even said (these are your exact words) "the consensus has been so complete and so clear". You said "They ... are the ones who write the books and publish the papers" - this is, if anything, an inclusive statement. You said "the scientific consensus has declared philosophy irrelevant". If that isn't inclusion I don't know what that is. So don't cry strawman please. Strawman is countering against a deliberately modified argument, not when your opponent argues based on what you said. Do not confuse "science" with "what scientists call science." My point remains because what I have a problem with is the perceptions of human beings, not the concept itself. What makes you think I am confused? The difference between "science" and "what scientists call science" is just as clear in my posts as it is in your own. Again, an attempt to Strawman me. Pity. I miss my professors.#1) "Post modernism is bad" is a value-judgement that is automatic for anyone fond of science or with a fundamental respect for the human mind. IE, human beings, and any academics who might still be human. #2) My actual argument --not the one you have chosen to debate-- is that post-modernism has been accepted by the intellectual community, and that this is a bad thing. Again, that is not Strawman. Well, I can see how you would interpret it as that but it was not my intent. Let me put it in a more specific fashion: I do not see how you are linking the rise of post-modernism to the decline in philosophical awareness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 i think its probably better to leave this to the philosophers as http://www.philosophyforums.net (if such a site exists) leaves the science to us.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 there is a http://www.philosophyforums.com if anybody is interested, and it looks suspicially like ours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 One thing I enjoyed about college is that the PhD's I talked to never said this kind of thing. Implying your opponent is a moron is not an argument. You appear to be missing my point, which was that 'Philosophy' in its most literal sense is the required first derivative for any abstract methodology, and therefore, even if the basic historical attitudes towards the subject are decried by the popular imagination, the study itself remains just as, if not more, necessary than ever. P.S. Oh god, Ayn Rand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted July 25, 2004 Author Share Posted July 25, 2004 there is a www.philosophyforums.com[/url'] if anybody is interested, and it looks suspicially like ours yup, anyone know anything about source code for websites, well that was ctrl-c and ctrl-v all the way [thats copy and paste] they copied our website exactly, unless it was the same makers, but that is highly unlikely...... but i suppose theres no law to stop ppl taking the basic templates from this website and using them elsewhere,... was it inevitable that they did that because we are sooo good, or fluke that they found and liked our site, was it God's doing or destiny, was it meant to be, or human choice and free will? that is what this thread was made to ask?....... and as philosophers say:- "that is the question...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 It could be that it's also a vB forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted July 25, 2004 Author Share Posted July 25, 2004 yeah, that could be it, i just the average layout and then shut the window, im more physics/chemistry than that stuff, so i didnt look for long. good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 When Skye said "it could be", he meant "it is". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Plus you can't copy the source for vB as easily as a quick copy-paste from your browser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest swordfishpro Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 depending where your coming from, life's purpose is to survive everything it throws at you. lifes meaning is something that you find along the way.......if it is not found; then ur survial has been meaningless. I think life is a coincidence, pure luck (even though i dont believe in it) that as sequence of events has given rise to the human race and we have evolve and gotten this far, to me life is all.....there is nothing after it; so dont waste it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted July 26, 2004 Author Share Posted July 26, 2004 what about God, does He exist? what does he play in your life? do you fear death? if theres nothing after, then its just like the end of a journey, you wont know anything after, so you wont regret it or nothing, you wont even know it happened, coz u cant think once ur dead! why are we here, what put us here? was it a fluke of nature, or the doing of sumin super-natural, or sumin super-human,,,,, sumin we would call God, or a random chemical fluke? "the questions of life, who knows the answers?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now