(February 10, 2015 at 11:04 am)Pizz-atheist Wrote: But maybe I'm getting this thread confused with another? There many threads about idealism. I'm sorry if I am.I will admit that I admire benny's attempt to justify idealism along the lines of what Nietzsche called an "unconquerable distrust of the possibility of self-knowledge," writing that, at least on epistemological grounds, "we should agree with these skeptical anti-realists and knowledge microscopists of today"---I mean his posts are leagues above the so-called idealists who merely attempt to smuggle in their notion of god by conflating consciousness with everything. However, it seems they both fail in the respect Nietzsche also pointed out: "To study physiology with a clear conscience, one must insist that the sense organs are not phenomena in the sense of idealistic philosophy; as such they could not be causes! Sensualism, therefore, at least as a regulative hypothesis, if not as a heuristic principle.— What? And others even say that the external world is the work of our organs? But then our body, as a part of this external world, would be the work of our organs! But then our organs themselves would be—the work of our organs! It seems to me that this is a complete reductio ad absurdum: assuming that the concept of a causa sui is something fundamentally absurd. Consequently, is the external world not the work of our organs—?"
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza