RE: On Hell and Forgiveness
September 14, 2018 at 4:12 pm
(This post was last modified: September 14, 2018 at 4:46 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Christ, I can't stand to watch these three stumble over their own dicks just to grind their own silly axes anymore.
Allow me to demonstrate how this works, as a realist, as an objectivist. As a pragmatic positivist.
I accept and acknowledge your criticism of the foundations of a hypothetical natural teleology, Jorg. You make valid points. Do those points, however, meaningfully rub against the truth content of any statement I make as an objectivist, as a realist, as a pragmatic positivist..in service of a natural teleology? If I contain myself to epistemic concerns, does mereological nihilism offer cogent comment on those things? What meaningful difference is there between a world of x ontologically objective status...and a world in which the subjective ontological and objective epistemic status is equivalent to x? Do I have -no- rational justification to contend that there is a correspondence between my subjective states and an objective reality?
If I am necessarily limited to my ontologically subjective point of view (and I am), but my ontologically subjective point of view is capable of describing what at least could be an ontologically objective reality, and -is- an epistemic objective reality, of what utility is such a toothless criticism of it's contents - accepting, ofc, that I must be careful to remember that I alone and unaided cannot always discern between the two?
Long story short, ya knobs..the best defense against nihilism is to accept it, and then say "so what, if so". If our internal reality is the only reality we have access to it becomes epistemically indistinguishable from reality in a grander sense...and it's only through a question begging argument that the possibility is invoked - even if true. Nihilism is self defeating..on it's own grounds. It attempts to shift meaning and truth into an arena in which there may be no meaning and truth, but in doing so..it eradicates any meaning and truth....to nihilism. Now, mind...that doesn't mean that a nihilist is wrong..it just means that it wouldn't matter if they were right. Delicious irony.
In a single sentence - accepting the difference between ontological and epistemic objectivity and subjectivity, and that nihilism is a valid objection to ontology..does nihilism offer -any- valid argument to my epistemic claims - the foundation of my knowledge, including my knowledge of meaning?
Allow me to demonstrate how this works, as a realist, as an objectivist. As a pragmatic positivist.
I accept and acknowledge your criticism of the foundations of a hypothetical natural teleology, Jorg. You make valid points. Do those points, however, meaningfully rub against the truth content of any statement I make as an objectivist, as a realist, as a pragmatic positivist..in service of a natural teleology? If I contain myself to epistemic concerns, does mereological nihilism offer cogent comment on those things? What meaningful difference is there between a world of x ontologically objective status...and a world in which the subjective ontological and objective epistemic status is equivalent to x? Do I have -no- rational justification to contend that there is a correspondence between my subjective states and an objective reality?
If I am necessarily limited to my ontologically subjective point of view (and I am), but my ontologically subjective point of view is capable of describing what at least could be an ontologically objective reality, and -is- an epistemic objective reality, of what utility is such a toothless criticism of it's contents - accepting, ofc, that I must be careful to remember that I alone and unaided cannot always discern between the two?
Long story short, ya knobs..the best defense against nihilism is to accept it, and then say "so what, if so". If our internal reality is the only reality we have access to it becomes epistemically indistinguishable from reality in a grander sense...and it's only through a question begging argument that the possibility is invoked - even if true. Nihilism is self defeating..on it's own grounds. It attempts to shift meaning and truth into an arena in which there may be no meaning and truth, but in doing so..it eradicates any meaning and truth....to nihilism. Now, mind...that doesn't mean that a nihilist is wrong..it just means that it wouldn't matter if they were right. Delicious irony.
In a single sentence - accepting the difference between ontological and epistemic objectivity and subjectivity, and that nihilism is a valid objection to ontology..does nihilism offer -any- valid argument to my epistemic claims - the foundation of my knowledge, including my knowledge of meaning?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
