Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'universe'.
Greg Anderson is a history professor at Ohio State University. He recently gave a TED talk on the pluriverse. He rejects objective reality, arguing that there are many realities which he calls the pluriverse. Essentially each culture (or group of people) has their own reality which they create themselves. (He uses the ancient Athenians as an example.) These realities are equally real and important, except perhaps for modern Westerners who believe in objective reality and a universe. Thus we need to take notes from all the indigenous peoples who believe in primitive gods and live sustainable lives. I suppose the "multiverse" concept is not subjectivist enough for the hardcore leftist academic. Multiverse comes mostly in the form of a physics theory subject to scientific scrutiny. But the "pluriverse" idea is sustained by pure imagination, by the various popular myths of different societies throughout time. The problem, however, is that an egalitarian metaphysics has an inherent enemy in anyone who claims a superior metaphysics, and so it must be implied, if not clearly explicated, that pluriverse is the one, true view of reality.
I saw this on The Jimmy Dore Show: Neil deGrasse Tyson and Norm Macdonald had a philosophical exchange on Twitter. Tyson basically said that the universe is indifferent to your pain, which is a pretty common sentiment among atheistic scientists and philosophers. But Macdonald, who is a pretty witty comedian, accused Tyson of a logical flaw. He said that since we are all part of the universe, we too would have to be indifferent to people's pain. I suppose the logical flaw Macdonald identified is the fallacy of composition. Essentially, Tyson is saying that since some things in the universe are indifferent, that means the whole universe is indifferent--which doesn't make sense. If Macdonald's reasoning is sound, we Objectivists might want to revisit our view of the benevolent universe premise. Is that also fallacious?