I have received an interesting critical comment to an older post. I have no way of knowing whether readers can tell when older posts get comments. So I will refer here to the post in question, one titled "Secondary Ruminations". The new commenter issued a challenge which I happily engaged and responded with comments of my own. These involve Materialist philosophers Haugeland, Hellman and Thompson.
It is an interesting exercise, supporting my intial point that materialists wish to prove an agenda, not to find objective truth, and also a secondary point which is that denigration frequently comes to the fore immediately when Materialists are confronted.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query secondary ruminations. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query secondary ruminations. Sort by date Show all posts
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Secondary Ruminations
One need not hang around philosophers very long before realizing that what they do is speculate. If it were not so, it would be science, or maybe math. It has occurred to me that some of these speculations seem to be based on axioms that are not first principles. It is possible to make up one's own "axioms" and proceed from there to build a case.
The difference in axioms might be the difference between totally diametric conclusions, none of which are provable in an empirical manner.
I am thinking here of Philosophical Materialism. There is never an attempt to prove the underlying axiom that there is no non-material existence. It is taken as an axiomatic truth, upon which all other reality is based.
To question that axiom which is perceived as "truth" results in ridicule and character assassination as was discussed in my previous post. If one cannot see the "truth" of that axiom, then something must be presumed to be seriously wrong with that individual. But not wrong with the axiom.
In order to maintain a belief in an axiom rationalized and fabricated from an agenda, it is necessary to violate the actual first principles of logic and rational thought. For example, if Philosophical Materialism is to successfully claim a scientific basis for declaring "no non-material reality", it must provide empirical proof of its claim; after all, that is what science does, it provides empirical proof. But of course it is not possible to prove a negative and this leaves the Materialists with only inferential straw men such as a flying spaghetti monster and an orbiting teapot. Inferences are not proofs they are opinions; straw men are blatant fallacies; Materialists cannot prove scientifically that which they claim. So they have a non-coherent belief, that science proves all reality to be material, when it doesn't and can't prove any such thing.
But they must believe what they believe. So the recourse is to win arguments through denigration, character assassination and ridicule, all of which are also Ad Hominem fallacies of the nasty type. Nastiness wins guffaws from the intellectually juvenile, but it wins no logic successes. The Materialist relativism coupled with unrestrained nastiness produces some truly ridiculous output from these folk. But to them, it is logic, and to me that conclusion is scary.
The difference in axioms might be the difference between totally diametric conclusions, none of which are provable in an empirical manner.
I am thinking here of Philosophical Materialism. There is never an attempt to prove the underlying axiom that there is no non-material existence. It is taken as an axiomatic truth, upon which all other reality is based.
To question that axiom which is perceived as "truth" results in ridicule and character assassination as was discussed in my previous post. If one cannot see the "truth" of that axiom, then something must be presumed to be seriously wrong with that individual. But not wrong with the axiom.
In order to maintain a belief in an axiom rationalized and fabricated from an agenda, it is necessary to violate the actual first principles of logic and rational thought. For example, if Philosophical Materialism is to successfully claim a scientific basis for declaring "no non-material reality", it must provide empirical proof of its claim; after all, that is what science does, it provides empirical proof. But of course it is not possible to prove a negative and this leaves the Materialists with only inferential straw men such as a flying spaghetti monster and an orbiting teapot. Inferences are not proofs they are opinions; straw men are blatant fallacies; Materialists cannot prove scientifically that which they claim. So they have a non-coherent belief, that science proves all reality to be material, when it doesn't and can't prove any such thing.
But they must believe what they believe. So the recourse is to win arguments through denigration, character assassination and ridicule, all of which are also Ad Hominem fallacies of the nasty type. Nastiness wins guffaws from the intellectually juvenile, but it wins no logic successes. The Materialist relativism coupled with unrestrained nastiness produces some truly ridiculous output from these folk. But to them, it is logic, and to me that conclusion is scary.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)