chuff
-
Posts
109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by chuff
-
-
Again I am writing quickly during a class, so I apologize for any seemingly abrupt statements.
Okay, I've figured out what the root of our disagreement is. People here apparently believe that they have a method of reaching the truth, "reducing concepts to reality," which all knowledge must conform to. I will need to undermine your confidence in this epistemology before we'll be able to make any progress, because otherwise you'll just assert that you already know that any argument for God must fail because the claim that God exists cannot be reduced to the data of sense.
The root of our disagreement is that you are proposing a means of knowledge apart from the senses and/or reason, which is how Rand defined mysticism. Displacing our confidence onto an epistemic system of mysticism will be challenging indeed.
In addition, the current complaint is not that God cannot be observed with the senses, it is that definitions of God or proposals of any supernatural entity definitionally "rest on a false metaphysical premise;" (Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series (1976), Lecture 2.). In other words, the arbitrariness of propositions of a God, meaning they are proposed with neither perceptual nor conceptual evidence (Paraphrase of Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism,” lecture series (1976), Lecture 6.)
I hate to quote-bomb you, but you seem to still misunderstand what is meant by "claims for God are arbitrary."
So, loosely following an argument of Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, I claim that this epistemology fails because it is self stultifying. There is no way to reduce the claim, "all claims must be reduced to the self evident data of sense," to the data of sense. It's an arbitrary assertion. An epistemology which demands that we begin with self evident or incorrigible claims will always be self stultifying for this reason. (Rand's view is a form of what is called classical foundationalism, which is defunct.)
This new claim of yours may be grounds for a new thread. I'll leave that to you as OP and moderators.
Something to ponder in regard to it regardless: Why must claims about potential existents in question be reduced to the self-evident data of sense? The existence of the entity in question in physical reality needs a definition (which hasn't appeared), and needs sense data to support it before becoming tenable. When one declares that sense data is impossible in regard to that entity, it is this declaration that renders his proposition arbitrary.
Therefore we have to back off from this epistemology. I suggest that it is more reasonable to adopt weak foundationalism, on which a claim can rationally be accepted under less stringent criteria than those which Rand laid down. For example, Swinburne's weak foundationalism suggests that a belief can rationally be accepted if it simply seems true to the agent. On Swinburne's epistemology, we then weave together these beliefs which seem true into worldviews as best we can as the evidence comes in.
"This seems true to me; therefore, my acceptance of its truth is rational" is indeed a shockingly weak formulation in terms of its rationality...
So, even if you somehow establish that the claim that God exists cannot be reduced to the data of sense, that doesn't imply that theism is unjustified. Theism could still follow from claims that seem true (or itself be a claim that seems true).
I'll leave it there for now, because I'm sure you guys have a lot of criticism for me.
Again, the claim that an entity called "God" exists must have a non-contradictory (i.e., logical) definition of God.
That God seems to exist to you does not justify theism. Talk about weak foundations!
-
Yeah, but it seems absurd to say that you know that God doesn't exist and that the concept of God is incoherent when even the people who argue about God for a living apparently don't know that. It's a little like the creationists, who claim to know that evolution did not happen in spite of the nearly universal dissent of the relevant scientists (don't take that the wrong way; it's just the first analogy that came to mind).
Thanks for clarifying. I don't think that the concept of God presupposes that examination by reason will be fruitless. Could you explain why you think that it does?
2046 seems to be making a number of points, so maybe you could tell me which point you meant to indicate here. The main point which I got out of that post is that it's not necessarily a problem for Objectivism that Objectivism is behind on philosophy of religion, because the new arguments in philosophy of religion are all arbitrary. I'm not sure how 2046 knows that these new arguments are arbitrary when the people working in the field apparently don't know that, though.
I'm sorry that it seems absurd to you. For a person to say these many people are wrong and I am right is not per se absurd. Consider what would make it absurd, namely, if the many were correct. And how do we determine truth? Very important stuff here in your approach. The Creationists are absurd because they hold to arbitrary assertions and claim that the findings of science are beneath them.
I don't know how much of Objectivism's reasons for atheism you have read, but this idea of reasonable examination made fruitless from the start was clear to me when I first read it. (pp 30-33 in OPAR are helpful, as well as I believe "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," which can be found in Philosophy: Who Needs It?.)
The point 2046 is making is that Objectivism does not have a "hole" or a "problem" simply because it doesn't answer to every arbitrary assertion about a deity or about some supernatural something-or-other.
I'm not convinced that there's much of anything to the Objectivist theory of concepts. I've read ITOE, and I didn't see anything there that would turn a person into a cognitive Übermensch capable of effortlessly out-thinking people who've spent their lives on a subject.
This is one of the reasons I left Objectivism. Rand writes in a very vague style that gives the impression that she's saying something really important, but dissolves when you put it under the microscope and try to figure out what she meant.
The philosophy of Objectivism is not about taking an authority's word for it. Your approach is where you are at fault. You want some *one* to convince you that an arbitrary assertion is not true. Knowing what you know about the burden of proof, you ought to bring the specific argument to this forum and ask us to analyze the formulation.
-
My apologies. I usually don't point people to books and websites as much as I've been doing in this discussion. I think I'm doing it a little more in this discussion because people are claiming that theism is incoherent and arbitrary as if these claims are uncontroversial. I'm trying to get across that (1) there's a big body of rigorous philosophical literature on the existence and coherence of God and (2) it's academically respectable to argue for the existence of God in philosophy - it's not a "given" that God is incoherent and arbitrary.
I know you know this, but to remind you: (1) Rigor is not truth. and (2) The question of whether the existence of a god is arbitrary is not determined by how many academics support or recognize the proposition. Neither is controversy the standard of the coherence or arbitrariness of a claim.
The claim as I understand it does not need to be examined, because it presupposes that examination by reason will be fruitless. This is what makes the claim arbitrary. It is set up in such a way to make it so.
This, I think, is where people are coming from here.
In addition, the point made earlier by 2046 is key here:
click arrow to travel to post[edited to add]
-
...
Swinburne's The Coherence of Theism is a sustained argument for the conclusion that theism is coherent. Do you think that the reasoning in this book fails? If so, why?
That is pretty rude. Bring the discussion and the arguments here, don't make us chase you around.
-
Okay.
I don't think that there would be a universe if there was no God. God sustains everything logically contingent (other than himself, of course).
Thanks for the question.
To me, this smacks of "I will not even consider the possibility that my current position is incorrect."
To my knowledge, Objectivists have not put forth any strong arguments to show theism is incoherent. They have no reason, therefore, to think it is incoherent.This is backwards. Reason must be given to think it is coherent. And since theistic definitions always exclude outright any rational coherence, it is an arbitrary proposition.
-
=The only sort of claim of universality of Objectivist ethics is that all people need to use reason since any choice is based upon the furtherance of one's whole life=
Hm, it leads me to an interesting twist I hadn't thought about before. Can we say that if we somehow know for sure how long it remains for us to live and have no way to change it, we don't need ethics at all? And if we have some upper limit on our lifespan, ethics rules which would otherwise enable us to prolong our life beyond this limit is unapplicable in our context?
The way that I respond to this is, no matter how long you are told you have remaining to live, that still is time alive, i.e., there will still be some amount of time left to live. Since man, to live, needs values, and must act rationally to pursue them, ethics is still just as applicable then (assuming freedom of choice etc) as it is when you are alive and don't suspect imminent death. I hope my thoughts here came across clearly, I'm writing them very quickly.
-
What was Roark`s problem? Why couldn`t he go to a party, have sex with girls, and have fun for gods sake? I personally value these things very much, even though there is not a important and serious purpose behind these activities.
Whenever Roark entered a room, people felt uncomfortable, and his face was closed like a vault. What is the advantage of being like that? I don`t see why he couldn`t be social, have a lot of friends, join the fraternity, and still be loyal to his principles, and still stand for his ideas, do you guys get my point? Does living objectively in the context of human interactions means having just few friends who share your views, just sitting by their side doing nothing and acknowledging their existence? That seems pretty boring to me.
In Atlas Shrugged, the playboy life Francisco was having seemed pretty cool and exciting. Why couldn`t someone lead a life with a lot of fun and parties and girls and still be productive and objective?
...
I don’t want to realize with 80 years old that I lived my life as a lonely bastard who didn`t have fun at all.
Do you guys understand what i`m saying?
I'm going have a go at your question.
First of all, the very important and serious purpose behind activities you enjoy (aside from your own happiness, which is integral) is productive work. It's the very purpose of man's life, and happiness is the "successful state of life," which you gain from the attainment of values. The attainment of those values is virtue, which comes from the use of your mind. Far from considering things that might not be considered a "job" as non-productive simply because they aren't career-oriented with tangible results (like an iron bar), I suggest you think more of them in terms of what they do for you, in particular your mental state. Others have mentioned sport and other such things as beneficial for your body, for your ability to cope and relate with others, and just as a recreation to appreciate the things you have done.
This is what is so important about treating yourself. There seems to be a strong parallel between getting a reward you don't deserve and a resulting negative emotional state.
The thing about having sex with "girls" is that sex is not supposed to be meaningless. It is supposed to represent your values and your recognition of those values in another person (cf. love). The feelings of physical pleasure that are gained from the mere act of sex can be recreated without another human being, given the right tools. The experience of sex involves more than just nice feelings. An extremely important quote on sex is the following one:
-Ayn Rand, For the New IntellectualThe man who despises himself tries to gain self-esteem from sexual adventures—which can’t be done, because sex is not the cause, but an effect and an expression of a man’s sense of his own value . . .Most of my response I gleaned from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, which it would be good for you to read, in particular the following entries:
I'll end with a great quote from Rand in the "Loneliness" entry that I think is relevant:
"...(Loneliness is specifically the experience of this type of child—or adult; it is the experience of those who have something to offer. The emotion that drives conformists to “belong,” is not loneliness, but fear—the fear of intellectual independence and responsibility. The thinking child seeks equals; the conformist seeks protectors.)" -Ayn Rand on Loneliness
-
Xbox Live gamertag: Iron Chuff
I play on Live basically three or four nights a week.
Halo: Reach
Halo 3
Modern Warfare 2
Black Ops (occasionally)
-
Ms. Clara told me to email them to her as they become available. I have emailed her the first available episode, Episode 6
-
It seems to be that he thinks the full transcript is available already, but that is not so (right?). He may want to reword his disclaimer.
Only a few of them are ready.
@softwarenerd i pmed you
-
And here is the disclaimer he wrote for us:
Disclaimer in re podcast transcripts07-23-10
I learned recently that a full transcript of all my podcasts, both the questions and the answers, is available on the Objectivismonline website. I know little about this site or about the transcribers, nor have I read the transcripts. But the few samples I scanned were accurate and complete. On this basis, I have decided to offer a link for interested listeners, and to express my thanks to the individuals involved in this large task.
Writing is in essence a different language from speaking. Writing can and should be exact; speech can be only approximate. An unedited transcript of extemporaneous remarks, therefore, however excellent when heard, is almost always filled with defects of one sort or another—and so is frequently boring and even confusing. To turn extemporaneous speech into accurate and clear prose, a huge amount of time-consuming editing is required—which has not been done in the present case. Readers, therefore, are warned to judge accordingly, to focus on the gist of an answer and not on some specific word or phrase which may be inessential or misleading.
Those interested can hear the original audio from which these transcripts were compiled at my website www.peikoff.com.
-
I heard back from Dr. Peikoff a week ago:
Dear Mr. Huff,
Attached is the statement I want at the very beginning of the transcription, i.e., clearly visible to the reader before he begins to read. Please make the size of print easily readable, and show me the whole first.
And please let me know the resolution of the issue of making the transcripts available through our Peikoff.com RSS feed. Specifically, are there still any problems agreeing to or implementing this request? I am not sure whether this issue is or is not related to the emailing of the transcripts which you suggested. But if they are in fact two different things, I would like an email of the whole thing when convenient to you. In regard to the RSS, I would suggest that you email the people in charge of the website directly to find out technical difficulties. You can contact Carla Schmidt at _________________.
Let me take this opportunity to thank you again for your enthusiasm about the podcasts and for doing the work necessary to make them available in written form.
All best wishes,
Leonard Peikoff
(Dictated but not read.)
He attached a .doc file to this email.
And then again from him today:
Dear Chris Huff and Carla,
Chris, in order to conclude the legal aspects of the permission to transcribe, I would need to get a few things from you:
1) A statement that you agree to post the exact wording of my full disclaimer at the head of the material, with the degree of prominence I indicated earlier.
2) Regarding the RSS feed which we discussed, I would appreciate your taking it up directly with the Executive in charge of the website, and specifically of the podcast. As you will see below, Carla Schmidt has a number of questions in this regard, and I believe you indicated some technical problem here. So please contact her at her email _____________ to work this aspect out.
Thanks again for your interest,
Leonard
(Dictated but not read.)
I could use some help in answering his questions.
-
I think it would be helpful to focus on the desiderata (and why they are desirable), because those then are the values that we would be working towards, and obviously we would want to organize those values hierarchically.
I propose that the purpose of such a site is to provide a venue where good questions from people with a certain familiarity with Objectivism can receive high-quality answers. (This serves a higher purpose, the promulgation of Objectivism, which serves an even higher purpose, all of which we can assume). Obviously, this purpose would be a matter for discussion, but assuming that this is the purpose, then reaching that goal requires attention to two specifics: "good questions" and "high-quality answers". What are "good question", and "high-quality answers"?
I think that a "good question" (not just about Objectivism, but in general) is one that fully exploits the assumed knowledge context and gives a reason why the answer is not self-evidently known to the level of being certain. What is most crucial here is saying what that assumed knowledge context is, i.e. "who is the audience?". If you assume a relatively low level of exposure to Objectivism (e.g. "I am currently reading a Rand novel"), then certain kinds of questions would count as "good" -- because their answers are not obvious, given that level of knowledge -- as compared to the assumption that people will have read the novels, VOS, CUI, ITOE, and OPAR. I'll refer to these contexts as the "elementary exposure" and "advanced familiarity" contexts
"Good questions" must be differentiated from "bad questions" -- presumably, via moderation, "bad questions" would either be converted to "good questions" by re-writing, or would be excluded. A bad question could be "not actually a question", that is, using a question mark or question form as a means of making an assertion -- a favorite tool of trolls, who will say "Many people say X about Rand (X is some insulting characterization); how can you disagree?". Assuming that the question really is a request for information, it should request further information not only on what conclusion Rand has specifically drawn, but also why that conclusion is necessary, given facts and more basic assumptions; and there should be some reason for that conclusion to be possible, given the assumed knowledge context. For instance, in the advanced familiarity context, asking "Since one's own interest is what defines moral choices, is a life of theft a morally proper choice if, to the best of you knowledge, you can get away with it undetected?" would be a bad question; on the other hand, it is a credible question for a noob in the "elementary exposure" stage.
So in my opinion, one of the most important issues that has to be addressed is the level of background knowledge that is assumed. I don't think it should be too high; it should also not be zero. The problem of "noise" is caused not by people who don't know enough about Objectivism, but by those who will not take serious action to overcome their lack of knowledge.
I agree here. Each post need not have the same assumed knowledge; it could be "for more about rational self-interest, read VOS," etc.
-
There is a technology, fitted to automobiles, that requires the driver to have his breath analyzed, for alcohol, before the vehicle can be started, if I understand correctly.
Surely there can be technology that would continuously monitor the driver's brain while driving, an EKG technology perhaps, which would, if the driver's brain scan deviated beyond some amount of his standardized scan, deliver a mild (or greater, depending upon the degree of mental lack of focus (on driving), shock to the driver so as to get his mind back on what he's doing.
Not only could it control the errant mind while driving, but it could prove to be a benefit to mental health in general.
I'm shocked that you would suggest such a thing.
-
This is false. When your tolerance is higher because you drink regularly, you still experience the negative cognitive effects of a high BAC, you just aren't aware of it. Your judgement is still impaired, your reaction time is slower, and you can still make poor decisions, especially while driving. Aside from that, BAC is largely dependent on a person's weight, and with regular alcohol consumption you can actually drink more than someone else and have a lower BAC. Your body will actually start being more efficient at absorbing alcohol (although when you get to that point it is a health concern). So taking all things into consideration, BAC is a very reliable indicator of drunkenness. It may not be perfect, but allowing people to drive drunk is absurd.
I retract my statement in light of evidence of which I was previously unaware.
-
What needs to be made illegal is doing anything else with your mind.
Thought policing?
-
My thoughts:
Just this week in my home state texting while driving has been illegal.
Infringements of this kind are imminent once "pre-emptive force" is enough for a new law.
Soon, I'm sure, talking on the telephone will be illegal while driving; but why stop there? Really, not being tongue-in-cheek, what is the reason for stopping there?
Eating a burger or taking a swig of the last sip from a Coke can keeps you from operating the car at full efficiency; should these also be something cops should use their time to keep you from doing?
Plus it makes people criminals for texting in their cars while operating it.
It's not the actual damage you've done that you must pay for. It is the fact that you were in your car's driver seat while it was moving and you were texting.
The DUI law sets a standard of BAC that not every body works with. Some people with low alcohol tolerance will have a BAC below DUI level and still drive dangerously. Others who have much higher tolerance can operate the vehicle normally with above the accepted BAC.
-
How are there used copies available on Amazon?
-
IMPORTANT UPDATE:
Dear Mr. Huff,
Please do not post anything yet. I must write the disclaimers myself,
choosing each word carefully. No permission can be granted before then.
I cannot begin this task until after the Las Vegas conference. I will
contact you then, mid-July.
Best wishes,
Leonard Peikoff
Is there a way to hide the post with the transcripts in them?
-
I've already done Episode 30 and Episode 112.
I've also done Episode 12. I asked a member who wanted to help in any way he could to do Episode 11.
I'll await both his Episode and the status on the first five episodes before continuing posting them, so that they aren't out of order and will force me to go back and edit each post to be the one before it, etc.
-
If the new index is to replace the old one, I suggest adding the timestamps next to the questions in the new one as with the old, as they are useful and are already recorded in the old, anyway.
I'm not sure if anyone is "taking the mantle" on this, as chuff suggests, but if all of the 118 (to date) podcasts are to be transcribed, it will surely need to be a group effort to get the index caught up. This thread could serve as an announcement by individuals of podcasts they are working on, or intend to work on and complete in the very near future. That way, no two people are transcribing the same podcast. The transcription could then be emailed to a user who has access to the new index and can post the transcriptions in a common format.
To any who wish to transcribe: there is a disclaimer concerning errors and accuracy in the new index, but a single re-listen, perhaps a day after the initial transcription, should do the trick of eliminating nearly all errors.
I second this idea, as it's a great one.
Also, this could be the thread for posting errors found in them that need editing.
-
Chuff, You might be a miracle worker, so head to Vegas while you're on a roll
.I suggest you create a thread where the first post contains the required caveats, and each subsequent post is a transcript of a single podcast. (Or, broken down further, if you think that's more appropriate.) We could then pin the thread.
In the case of the index, we use special log-ons "Forum Publisher", that are used exclusively for that, and which have the ability to edit old posts for corrections. It that's fine with you, I can set up a similar ID for you. If you prefer to post them under your regular ID, that is fine as well; but, the software will impose a (one hour?) limit after which one cannot go back and edit.
FYI the index to the podcasts is maintained by members Trebor and JASKN.
As for #4, I assume LP is saying to send him a file with the transcribed text. I reckon he will have his own webmaster make the content available on his RSS feed.
I have created such a thread. I foolishly went ahead and posted several without the new log-in that can edit old posts. If you would not mind setting such a one up, I would be grateful.
-
My email to Dr. Peikoff:
Dear Mr. Peikoff,I have asked once before about whether I have your full permission to
transcribe your podcasts. I have not distributed any that I have
composed, for the reason that I still await it.
Please let me (and us) know of your position on our transcribing them,
alongside a caveat that your original podcast audio is definitive with
a link to each.
We at the Objectivism Online forum (home of the index to which you
gave credence) would love to hear from you on this issue.
Sincerely,
Chris Huff
Dr. Peikoff's response email to me:
Dear Mr. Huff,Thank you for your comment on the podcast, and for your idea of transcribing
the series. Unfortunately, I do not dare read your transcript, because I
will see a number of places where, if it were writing, I would have used
different words. I know that speaking extemporaneously can only be
approximate, but it is distasteful to see concretely how approximate, if you
know that this is what will be made public.
I think your idea of putting transcripts on the Objectivismonline website is
a good one, and I can approve, but only if you agree to several conditions:
1. A clear albeit amicable disclaimer would have to be available to readers
indicating that I have not read the transcripts and do not know much about
the website or individuals involved--that would go on to express
appreciation for your efforts.
2. I would have to make a pretty strong statement of the difference in
quality between speaking and writing.
3. I would want you to make clear to all readers--via a statement and
link--that the audio from which these were compiled is available on
www.peikoff.com.
4. And, so that I myself may have a complete file, I would like you to make
the transcripts available through our peikoff.com RSS feed in addition.
I look forward to hearing from you,
Leonard Peikoff
(Dictated but not read.)
So I propose we do as he asks.
I have finished six episodes of his podcast. I'll let a moderator or someone pin the thread or take the mantle on how to organize this, since it will be (as per request) in the site's name and not in mine.
Also, I'm not sure how to do #4.
-
From the same author, in response to exactly this TAS review:
It's been a while since I've dialogued on Objectivism (see here and here). Despite working a lot, since I was just forwarded this reply to Robbins' critique on which much - though not all - of my thoughts depended, I thought it might be a good opportunity to refresh my memory, even though the book to which the article's author is responding is actually a revised edition of the one I read ("Answer to Ayn Rand," not "Without a Prayer"). Since the author doesn't deal with the bulk of Robbins' arguments, I will similarly deal with those of his which I believe best exhibit the problematic nature of Objectivism.
Epistemology
In the first paragraph, the author redefines what it means for a claim to be logically valid. A claim is logically valid because it follows from a [set of] premise. Axioms by definition cannot be conclusions derived from a [set of] premise. He writes: "[An Objectivist's axiom is] valid because it formulates a fact that is directly perceived." However, it is one thing to say that an epistemological system is self-attesting (viz. that the system explains the means or historical process by which one comes to accept an axiom), it is quite another to suggest that an axiom - which is a "fundamental" premise by definition - can be predicated on "direct perception" and yet remain an axiom.
Either he is arguing one knows the "axiom of existence" is true because he "directly perceives" it (even though he, like Rand, cannot even define existence!), in which case the idea that existence is "axiomatic" is false, or he is arguing that the "axiom of existence" explains how one was able to historically (not propositionally) come to accept the "axiom of existence," which doesn't explain why such an axiom would be valid; after all, I can state that regeneration is the historical point at which I was able to come to terms with Scripturalism, but since Objectivism and Scripturalism purport mutually exclusive claims derived from different epistemological axioms, it cannot be the case that this historical explanatory power is itself sufficient to constitute an axiom as valid. Whatever the author means, he seems to be arguing circularly. Compare these two statements:
"[An Objectivist's axiom is] valid because it formulates a fact that is directly perceived."
"...the Objectivist account of perception is that people are directly aware of the external world in perception; that there is no mental stand-in for reality. And since the Objectivist position is a corollary of the axioms of existence and consciousness, it cannot be questioned without self-contradiction."
In the first quote, we are told that the Objectivist's axioms are valid *because* they were directly perceived, and in the second, we are told that the concept of direct perception is a corollary (not a justificatory basis) for the Objectivist's axioms - i.e. direct perception is true *because* of the Objectivist's axioms. At best, he is equivocating, so, having already teased out the possible meanings of his first quote in as "charitable" a manner as I think can be reasonably expected and found his arguments wanting, I am not inclined to think that, had he actually addressed the other arguments Robbins made in the chapter on Objectivist epistemology, he would have faired much better.
Ethics
This section was exceptionally poor (compare what the author covers to this). The author, noting the "problem of suicide" Robbins noted, states that "Robbins's claim... does not qualify as an argument. He is simply drawing a correct implication from Rand's ethics and decrying that implication. He provides no reason for believing that the implication is false." No, that is not what Robbins is doing. The author seems to forget what he himself wrote was the purpose of Robbins remarks: to demonstrate the subjectivity of Objectivist morality. Rand's claim, then, that "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do" (The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 17) is falsified, period.
The rest of the section, small as it is, relies on twin fallacies, inductivism and question-begging, apparent to anyone who reads it:
"A man who seeks to survive by the skin of his teeth into the next moment is highly unlikely to survive for a normal life span. One is more likely to succeed in sustaining one's existence over a period of time if one attempts to create or trade for a vast array of values, such as material wealth, art, recreation, general education, self-esteem, friendship, romantic love, and all the other values that would make one flourish.")
A Critique of Objectivist Philosophy of Religion
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
What epistemology did you use to determine that what you "justifiably" believe in is not true?
Whether an idea is true is verified outside your own mind. You don't just get to decide what you think is true or not and that belief suddenly be what is true. That would be the absence of an epistemology.
If you apply this "if it seems true, it is" nonsense to every claim, I think you'll find it works against you in attempting to "prove" something you believe or "argue a case" for something you believe. Under your epistemology, whatever seems true to me, is. It's pure subjectivism: as you said before, two different people can believe contradictory things and both be right. Don't try to call it something else.