The difference between ethical atheism and nihlism is that ethical atheists have more faith

[jstrodel]

It is not self evident that phenomenological perceptions can yield objective knowledge in a world in which the concept of objectivity is not interwoven into an appreciation of the human person. How do you know what the senses can reproduce around you? How is this so? What if you have defective eyes? What does the term "defective" even refer to when describing sense perception? Why do you reject Kant's categories of noumena and phenomena


You are stuck in a skeptical worldview and you won't admit it. If you want to hang on to your teleology, you must become a Deist, plain and simple (or better yet, a Christian).

Like I said before, since I don't buy the idea of inherent or intrinsic teleology, this is not a problem for me.

That settles it. Why don't you go with that then and be honest and call your beliefs about the world opinions? That is what they are.

Prove it. Prove that sense perception is ALWAYS tied to wants and needs - not just usually tied to it - and cannot be separated from it.

Sense perception is rooted in volition, which is tied the minds perception of deeply held cultural, economic, religious values that are always related to wants and needs. When people have sense perceptions, they have them according to their lingustic, cultural, social and economic makeup, which is function of their societies collective experience in meeting wants and needs.

Also, necessarily, all human actions are directed towards wants and needs. Sense perception and the formation of linguistic categories is a volitional act, people choose what to think, and their thoughts are always directed towards appreciating the world in their cultural context, which is always tied to wants and needs, and most sense perceptions are directed tied to wants and needs.

The cultural categories of science and language are overwhelmingly aimed at meeting peoples wants and needs.

The only way to transcend this is to become a mystic and to see in the spirit of the Holy God who freely gives knowledge to all people who humble themselves and accept their tiny, culturally conditioned, polluted view of the world and see in God's glorious radiance the splendor of the true telos of every living thing. You are not free to define the world around you as you see fit, a person is valuable not because you can perceive qualities of value in them, but because God sees them as such.

[genkaus]

It is not self evident that phenomenological perceptions can yield objective knowledge in a world in which the concept of objectivity is not interwoven into an appreciation of the human person.

No.

How do you know what the senses can reproduce around you?

By examining what they do reproduce around me.

What if you have defective eyes?

Then the knowledge rendered is inaccurate.

What does the term "defective" even refer to when describing sense perception?

That it is unable to capture a certain quality of data.

Why do you reject Kant's categories of noumena and phenomena

Because there is no evidence for the former.

You are stuck in a skeptical worldview and you won't admit it.

No, I admit it. I am a skeptic with regards to all claims that are not proven or self-evident.

f you want to hang on to your teleology, you must become a Deist, plain and simple (or better yet, a Christian).

I must do no such thing.

That settles it. Why don't you go with that then and be honest and call your beliefs about the world opinions? That is what they are.

Now that would be dishonest, since I take care to justify my beliefs.

Sense perception is rooted in volition, which is tied the minds perception of deeply held cultural, economic, religious values that are always related to wants and needs. When people have sense perceptions, they have them according to their lingustic, cultural, social and economic makeup, which is function of their societies collective experience in meeting wants and needs.

Now that is incorrect. The linguistic, cultural, social, relligious and economic values and makeup are not automatic to a person but developed painstakingly over time through the sense perceptions. Even if you argue that they eventually become tied to those values, the very fact that sense perceptions can occur where they do not exist shows that it is not necessarily tied to them and therefore can be separated.

Also, necessarily, all human actions are directed towards wants and needs. Sense perception and the formation of linguistic categories is a volitional act, people choose what to think, and their thoughts are always directed towards appreciating the world in their cultural context, which is always tied to wants and needs, and most sense perceptions are directed tied to wants and needs.

Again, not necessarily. Before your sense perceptions are advanced enough to develop linguistic categories, your actions are not volitional and not necessarily directed towards wants or needs. They could simply be reactive. Which means, even after formation of linguistic categories, it would still be possible to volitionally evaluate your sense perceptions minus any cultural context - as you were able to do before you developed it.

The cultural categories of science and language are overwhelmingly aimed at meeting peoples wants and needs.

So separating your sense perceptions from cultural categories should suffice to make it objective.

The only way to transcend this is to become a mystic and to see in the spirit of the Holy God who freely gives knowledge to all people who humble themselves and accept their tiny, culturally conditioned, polluted view of the world and see in God's glorious radiance the splendor of the true telos of every living thing. You are not free to define the world around you as you see fit, a person is valuable not because you can perceive qualities of value in them, but because God sees them as such.

And at this point you cut off any tether you had to a rational debate. Even if sense perceptions had some inherent subjectivity - it still wouldn't make your ridiculous method any better.

[jstrodel]

Now that is incorrect. The linguistic, cultural, social, relligious and economic values and makeup are not automatic to a person but developed painstakingly over time through the sense perceptions. Even if you argue that they eventually become tied to those values, the very fact that sense perceptions can occur where they do not exist shows that it is not necessarily tied to them and therefore can be separated.

This is a very optimistic view of the intellectual project. In reality, no one can check every single aspect of everything that they believe, there is philosophy that is embedded into their thoughts and the final process of their very short stay on earth does not relate to the effort involved in transcending their cultural makeup. People are a product of their times.


You ever hear that Public Enemy song where Chuck D starts talking about fighting the power? I think that's what you need to do, you need to fight the power (of technocracy and its psuedo-religious claims to "objectivity"). I think the power is the "objective" knowledge of some people who use their power to rule others. Postmodernism is sort of a wacky movement, but I think there is some truth to it.

The powerful make a standard to call their understanding objective and make another standard to call others subjective. It is all rhetorical games. People are small, they can't know much. That is the way it is.

You have absolutely no reason to suppose that your faculties are reliable or that they represent anything remotely the way it corresponds to anything.

Would you see that a pig's sense perceptions are "objective"? What about a mosquitos? Is not the concept of objectivity just a way for one to value his opinions greater than enough?

[Ryantology]

The powerful make a standard to call their understanding objective and make another standard to call others subjective. It is all rhetorical games. People are small, they can't know much. That is the way it is.

Careful, now. You have just described the very foundations of all Yahweh-based death cults, including your own, and invalidated them.

You have absolutely no reason to suppose that your faculties are reliable or that they represent anything remotely the way it corresponds to anything.

And then you insist that revelations are completely unreliable.

I don't think you realized, but you managed to explain exactly why your death cult's beliefs are nothing more than delusions used by charismatic people to bend the masses to their will.

[jstrodel]

Well, science acknowledges the human origin of its categories of objectivity and truth. You may argue against the claims of religion, present counter evidence against religion, but if religious belief is true, you must admit that the belief takes on a completely different character.

Even the Bible itself though does not really stress an objective, culturally defined law. Christianity is really more about the collective supernatural experience of the people of God being transformed not according to cultural traditions but according to spiritual experience. I can assure you that spiritual experience is nothing at all like the process of constructing an epistemology. You may guess that it is, and that I am lying, but you can't prove it.


If Christianity is true, the cognitive faculties are reliable though. It is not self refuting, the faculties being unreliable is contingent on naturalism.

[genkaus]

This is a very optimistic view of the intellectual project. In reality, no one can check every single aspect of everything that they believe, there is philosophy that is embedded into their thoughts and the final process of their very short stay on earth does not relate to the effort involved in transcending their cultural makeup. People are a product of their times.

You don't have to. All you need to do is to show that some aspects transcend their cultural makeup in order to show that it is possible.

You ever hear that Public Enemy song where Chuck D starts talking about fighting the power? I think that's what you need to do, you need to fight the power (of technocracy and its psuedo-religious claims to "objectivity"). I think the power is the "objective" knowledge of some people who use their power to rule others. Postmodernism is sort of a wacky movement, but I think there is some truth to it.

So, you'd have us abandon the actual objective knowledge we've gained for your subjective one? Pass.

The powerful make a standard to call their understanding objective and make another standard to call others subjective. It is all rhetorical games. People are small, they can't know much. That is the way it is.

Unless the powerful can show their standard to be objective - that won't be of any consequence.

You have absolutely no reason to suppose that your faculties are reliable or that they represent anything remotely the way it corresponds to anything.

Actually, I do have a very good reason to suppose that. My faculties work.

Would you see that a pig's sense perceptions are "objective"? What about a mosquitos? Is not the concept of objectivity just a way for one to value his opinions greater than enough?

I don't know much about a pig's or mosquito's sense perceptions. Perhaps you could tell me.

And no, the concept of objectivity is a to evaluate how well one's opinions line up with reality.

[jstrodel]

I don't think it is all subjective. I think people have objective knowledge of the collective contents of humans sense perceptions.


How do you define "work"? Here you will see the role of culture because it is inevitable that you will give an answer that is based in part on the culture and language that you live in.

Unless the powerful can show their standard to be objective. Hah. Do you read JS Mill much? He had a very deep sense of confidence in the ability of power to be mediated through discussion and the exchange of ideas. I think it is a bunch of balooney. "Objectivity" is a standard that has some relation to how people think, but is deeply connected with other values.

[genkaus]

I don't think it is all subjective. I think people have objective knowledge of the collective contents of humans sense perceptions.

And that objective knowledge free from cultural biases is forms the body of scientific knowledge.

How do you define "work"?

Actions undertaken with specific objective or goal in mind.

Here you will see the role of culture because it is inevitable that you will give an answer that is based in part on the culture and language that you live in.

You'd be wrong. My definition here does not reflect either my culture or the language common to it.

Unless the powerful can show their standard to be objective. Hah. Do you read JS Mill much? He had a very deep sense of confidence in the ability of power to be mediated through discussion and the exchange of ideas. I think it is a bunch of balooney. "Objectivity" is a standard that has some relation to how people think, but is deeply connected with other values.

If it is connected to their subjective values, then it is not objective.

[Ryantology]

Well, science acknowledges the human origin of its categories of objectivity and truth. You may argue against the claims of religion, present counter evidence against religion, but if religious belief is true, you must admit that the belief takes on a completely different character.

I'd be willing to admit that, if the belief was true. And, a religion which makes many naturalistic claims in its scripture (in which God directly interferes with the physical world in a way that those in proximity are said to be directly, physically affected) must undergo natural scrutiny. Hiding behind the veils of the supernatural and metaphysical is a tacit admission that the physical universe contains no evidence of the existence of the being which allegedly created it, which is, itself, a clear example of faith retreating before the advance of science. Before science reached its maturity, Christians did not need to fit their god into gaps. Now, it is the only place in which most Christians seem to find him (excepting those really special people who run Creationist museums).

Even the Bible itself though does not really stress an objective, culturally defined law. Christianity is really more about the collective supernatural experience of the people of God being transformed not according to cultural traditions but according to spiritual experience. I can assure you that spiritual experience is nothing at all like the process of constructing an epistemology. You may guess that it is, and that I am lying, but you can't prove it.

It is nothing like constructing an epistemotology because having delusions and hallucinations is in no way related to the construction of that which becomes knowledge.

You cannot prove that any 'spiritual' experience has ever happened, even once, in all of human history. I'll accept that you believe your delusions and hallucinations were spiritual episodes, but to suggest that they actually were spiritual episodes is a hollow and transparent assertion, nothing more.

[jstrodel]

There is really not that much you can prove though, is there, over the computer.