RE: Argument against atheism
December 22, 2011 at 12:24 am
(This post was last modified: December 22, 2011 at 12:32 am by Perhaps.)
His argument supposed that consciousness was a property of the universe. We've established that it is an emergent property. This led to a discussion of metaphysical solipsism vs. objectivism. It was a wonderful discussion until individuals started to make rash assumptions hidden as 'facts' and 'truths'. This led to the quick demeaning of the discussion and eventually subjective statements made on the premise that objectivism is true.
For those who believe that proving yourself is possible, or proving anything is possible, I would recommend reading some ontology. If you don't think that ontology has value then I would recommend reading some axiology. If you think philosophy has no value then I would recommend ignorance, for that seems to suit most who blindly accept science as absolute truth.
A philosophical discussion is merely that - a discussion. There is no argument, for the discussion is what is creating the premises, and without premises an argument isn't an argument. If there is no argument then there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. I'm sorry if this frustrates some who believe that there are such things objectively.
Subjectivity is, perhaps, the point of this thread - or at least what has become of this thread. In a existence where two or more things are conscious there is subjectivity. This subjectivity does not negate the possibility of objectivity outside of the conscious beings. This subjectivity does however negate the possibility that all things are objective - which is the premise of objectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)).
The recognition that there is a possibility of objectivity outside of the conscious being negates the premise of metaphysical solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism). Thus we are left in a position somewhere between these two. One that recognizes the conscious' effect on our perception of reality while also recognizes the possibility of objective existence outside of our own conscious self.
'Philosobollocks' is only meaningless if you determine it to be so. Like I said, ignorance is a tolerable position to hold, but not one that gives you the right to determine absolute truths or facts.
For those who believe that proving yourself is possible, or proving anything is possible, I would recommend reading some ontology. If you don't think that ontology has value then I would recommend reading some axiology. If you think philosophy has no value then I would recommend ignorance, for that seems to suit most who blindly accept science as absolute truth.
A philosophical discussion is merely that - a discussion. There is no argument, for the discussion is what is creating the premises, and without premises an argument isn't an argument. If there is no argument then there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. I'm sorry if this frustrates some who believe that there are such things objectively.
Subjectivity is, perhaps, the point of this thread - or at least what has become of this thread. In a existence where two or more things are conscious there is subjectivity. This subjectivity does not negate the possibility of objectivity outside of the conscious beings. This subjectivity does however negate the possibility that all things are objective - which is the premise of objectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)).
The recognition that there is a possibility of objectivity outside of the conscious being negates the premise of metaphysical solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism). Thus we are left in a position somewhere between these two. One that recognizes the conscious' effect on our perception of reality while also recognizes the possibility of objective existence outside of our own conscious self.
'Philosobollocks' is only meaningless if you determine it to be so. Like I said, ignorance is a tolerable position to hold, but not one that gives you the right to determine absolute truths or facts.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
