gags
-
Posts
1755 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by gags
-
-
I appreciate your response and I agree with it. The reason I even asked the question is because it appears to me that the political atmosphere of at least two major European countries (France and Germany, to be specific) is dominated by pomo/nihilist thinking. Islam, today's most virulent strain of "faith", has located this weak underbelly and is beginning to attack it. Unless the Europeans abandon their self-destructive philosophy, I don't see how they can withstand the long-term assault from Islam. It's as if postmodernism has paved the way for Islam/faith (and all of the dangers associated with it) in much the same way that Kant and his followers paved the way for the Nazis.Because nihilism and post-modernism are on their way out, they have created a partial vacuum. Religions are filling that vacuum: Christianity and Islam especially, but also Environmentalism (still a nascent religion)...In summary, I would say that faith (that is, religion) is now (and once again) the greater long-term threat. That doesn't mean the pomos and nihilists aren't a threat, only that they are less of a threat as time goes by.
In America, postmodernism is well established at our universities but has a much more limited base in the general public. That gives me hope for us, but I'm still concerned about the implications of an Islamic France or Germany.
-
Is there some new piece of evidence you've discovered that convinces you there is a God? Is that a piece of evidence of the senses or something unique to your consciousness? If there is such evidence, perhaps you can share it with us.I guess that after years of thought, I've determined that thinking produces ideas and ideas produce change. Thus, if I do not ever change my mind, that means I'm no longer thinking but merely remembering what I once thought. -
FAITH AND REASON VS. NIHILISM. When used properly, both faith and reason stand together as a bulwark against the modern scourges of skepticism, cognitive (and consequently moral) relativism, and nihilism, particularly its most recent, but perhaps now dying form, post-modernism. To combat these modernist enemies, the children of God need -- not reason alone (rationalism); not literal, unguided reading of the Holy Scripture alone (Biblicism); not blind faith (fideism) -- but faith guiding reason and reason understanding the revelations given to us by God to deal with the issues for which reason is too limited.
Burgess, I found Brother Brian's statement above to be thought-provoking. In your opinion (Burgess, not Brian
), which is currently a greater and more immediate threat to rational men, Faith or Nihilism/Postmodernism? Perhaps the two can't really be seperated, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. -
Why is control necessary in order to have knowledge? If I merely observe an experiment rather than conducting it myself, does that make it an invalid source of knowledge for me?
Doesn't knowledge require focus? If you don't control and focus your mind, sensory perceptions will go in one ear and out the other, so to speak. One doesn't need to control every part of reality that one observes in order to integrate observations into knowledge. However, you do need to control (and focus) your mind.
-
Welcome to the forum Maydaysos. If I understand, in your view God is everything that exists. Am I stating your position correctly?
everything is conscious to some extent. a rock floation in space is affected by time/space and in turn is affecting time/spacei am fully prepared to aurgue my point.
You need to provide us with your definition of consciousness. I'm not aware of any definition of the term that would describe a rock as being conscious.
p.s. If you pay more attention to grammar, spelling and capitalization it will help others to understand the points you're making.
-
According to the Washington Times, A multimillion-dollar campaign to boost Germans' low self-confidence has backfired after it emerged that its slogan was coined by the Nazis. The $34 million "Du Bist Deutschland -- You Are Germany" -- campaign was devised to inspire Germans to stop moaning and do something good for their country.
If Germans lack self-confidence, perhaps they should stop moaning and do something good for themselves.
Here's the entire article:
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20051125-110324-4259r.htm
... one of its aims (of the advertising campaign) is to release today's Germans from the collective guilt and depression they still feel about the Nazi era...
According to the campaign's coordinator: "Our campaign stands for the values human dignity, democracy, respect of the individual and pluralism. 'Du Bist Deutschland' is a message to everyone that every one of us has a responsibility for the well-being and future of Germany."
Apparently old habbits die hard. 60 years after the end of WWII, German collectivism/statism seems to be alive and well.
-
No matter what one thinks about whether we should have gone to war, there is something particularly despicable about a former president who goes to a foreign country and criticizes our efforts in the middle of a conflict.
-
Castro would be a FANTASTIC Muslim. I'm all in favor of him becoming one.
-
What if a foreign country does not respect intellectual property rights? Take China as an example. Would it be appropriate to place tariffs on Chinese goods because they permit the theft of US intellectual property?
-
Clinton is an incredible hypocrite and a fantastic liar. Frankly, I couldn't care less about his opinion(s) on any issue of importance - including the war in Iraq. I agree with Horowitz, the man is a disgrace.
-
Well, Descartes gave a pretty solid proof. Assume that there is nothing. Then who is doing the assuming? You. Hence you exist. Hence something exists. Hence there cannot be nothing.
Descartes' statement "cogito, ergo sum" is as clear a statement of the primacy of consciousness approach to metaphysics as any I've ever heard. Whether you translate it as "I think, therefore I am" or "I think, therefore I exist", the meaning is essentially the same. Ayn Rand identified (correctly, IMO) the primacy of consciousness as the most important error one can commit in metaphyisics.
-
Another problem with tariffs is that they cause domestic industries to be less competitive. The former Soviet Union was essentialy a large protected market where domestic producers had no need to compete with firms from other countries. Soviet producers atrophied (predictably) and eventually this type of protected market must collapse.
-
And Yay! You, too can take quotes out of context!
I'm a pleasant guy so I won't respond rudely to your comment, but the nature of an internet forum is such that one must pull quotes "out of context" because it's difficult to post an entire philosophical work here.
By the way, I pulled the Nietzsche quote from Vol. IV of WT Jones History of Western Philosophy before I had even looked at the passage on the Human Events website. It's a fairly well known quote of his, and you can read it in section 259 of Beyond Good and Evil.
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/Nietzsche/...oodandevil9.htm
I don't see anything from the full context of the quote that would give it a different meaning than one derives by reading it "out of context".
-
Cold, can you give an example of what you are talking about?
-
Hal, if you have access to the Objectivist Forum, you should read the article written by Dr. Ridpath that appears in the February and April 1986 issues. Particularly in the April 1986 issue (Part II of the article), he does a nice job of describing Nietzsche's view of reason.
-
I too have a relatively limited knowledge of Kant. However, it's my understanding that he did believe there was reality (the noumenal world), just that we could never really know it. Man was limited to the phenomenal world, which represented reality according to our consciousness. Later philosophers followed Kant but modified him by saying that if we can never know the noumenal/real world, why should we believe that it even exists?
I'm planning to read more on the subject.
-
The problem with this interpretation is that its difficult to see how the distinction between 'primacy of existence' and 'primacy of consciousness' can be formulated. If "existence exists" just means that something exists, and we are also told that consciousness exists, then there doesnt seem to be any axiomatic reason for preferring the primacy of existence to that of consciousness. If consciousness is the only thing existing, then it is still true that 'something exists' and hence there is no violation of the axioms.
It seems to me that the statement "existence exists" must logically come first because in order for there to be consciousness (which itself is an existent), one must be conscious of something. From OPAR: "Existence" here is a collective noun, denoting the sum of existents. This axiom does not tell us anything about the nature of existents; it merely underscores the fact that they exist. This axiom must be the foundation of everything else. Before one can consider any other issue, before one can ask what things there are or what problems men must face in learning about them, before one can discuss what one knows or how one knows it - first, there must be something, and one must grasp that there is. If not, there is nothing to consider or to know."
Although the statement "existence exists" is so obvious that it's almost ridiculous to even say, David had it right when he said: "It was a dramatic way to make a point about relations between certain philosophical principles (basically a way of saying that existence is the philosophically fundamental fact that needs to be grasped, rather than consciousness as Kant and Descartes felt)." In response to Kant, it is entirely appropriate and important to make the point that existence exists independent of our consciousness.
-
This website isn't trying to make it seem like Nietzsche was anything. Furthermore, I'm not aware of anyone here accusing him of being a Nazi, which would be terribly difficult given that he died in 1900.It's great that this website tries to make it seem like Neitzche was a Nazi. In fact, he rejected racisim. But that doesn't stop anyone from making misinformed blanket assertions.While I seriously doubt that Nietzsche would have supported the Nazis, it is undeniable that he held reason in low regard, which the Nazis did as well. I also think they would have looked favorably on his statement that "Life itself is essential assimilation, injury, violation of the foreign and the weaker, suppression, hardness, the forcing of one's own forms upon something else, ingestion and - at the least in its mildest form - exploitation."
-
I find the second paragraph (the one on monopolies) of the Sherman Act to be particularly ironic in that government officials aren't mentioned. After all, in order to maintain a monopoly politicians need to intervene in favor of one business over the others.
-
A number of members have urged you to read more on the philosophy, yet you continue to make unfounded and mistaken observations about Objectivism. If you're banned, it will be the result of your own lack of intellectual integrity.An observation...I find, so far at least, that Objectivism seems to be a backwards construction from a political philosophy. The tenets of the politics are what seems to have driven the rest of the construction right down to the basic foundations which are unacceptable logically and in the face of current evidence, yet are necessary to defend the political position.
It is a vain and arrogant position to espouse that one's politics are the one, true way because of what we as humans are and therefore all other positions are necessarily irrational. This is consistent with how criticism has been handled here so far.
I suspect you'll ban me for this observation, but I encourage you not to if you have a shred of intellectual integrity.
Bob
-
Objectivism has roots in Nietzche, so my view of Nietzche is slightly more favorable than most.
On what do you base this statement? I know that when she was younger, Rand admired Nietzsche's favorable view of the individual. She even put a quote of his in her intro to the 25th anniversary edition of The Fountainhead. However, Rand qualified her use of the quote because there were important aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy that she believed were profoundly evil. Is there more to this than what I know?
-
Socionomer, I won't respond to your two earlier posts because AisA has already stated virtually the same things I would have said.
Nevertheless, I wonder if you would agree with me that our situation in terms of rights and individual freedom is deteriorating at an accelerating rate in this country? In fact, many of the rights that Libertarians hold to be self-evident are being taken away at an alarming pace. If you did a survey of college seniors (America's future leaders), my guess would be that 90% of them couldn't even define what a "right" is. Why is this? I believe it's because of philosophy and/or the lack of it. There is really only one way to combat the professors and the philosophers who are dripping intellectual poison into our schools and our political debates. We must fight fire with fire, and it has to be the right kind of fire. This is why I find it so disappointing when the Libertarian party throws in the towel on philosophy.
-
WOW! That's fantastic.
-
As an added bonus in terms of the alienation of these rioters, it appears that many of them favor the culture of "Gangsta Rap".
http://cracksinthefacade.blogspot.com/
So now we have muslim Gangsta Rappers. The contradictions just keep piling up on themselves.
Is the existence of "God" possible?
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
You still haven't answered the statement that it's not possible to prove a negative. On the other hand, if you have some proof of the existence of God, bring it forth so we can evaluate it. Saying that man's knowledge is limited and we are not omniscent are hardly proof of God's existence.