tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post4353073022049872310..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Is Atheism Inherently Arrogant?Bahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-14773185980432587422010-06-17T15:40:59.296-04:002010-06-17T15:40:59.296-04:00Dawson:
I do apologize for not getting back to yo...Dawson:<br /><br />I do apologize for not getting back to you. I can appreciate your justified defensiveness regarding my characterization of a post I received which I presumed was you. The poster of the comment had the air of authority for which I presumed came from the author of the blog, namely yourself. As I received the post in my email, I did not bother to look on your blog, or look closely at identity of the poster and I didn't know the tag line by which you identify yourself.<br /><br />I do apologize for my comments. I shall take up on the response you provided at a later date as I am a bit swamped with other projects at the current time.<br /><br />JohnJohn Hutchinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209178822938252226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-54134989936558073852010-06-11T16:18:56.729-04:002010-06-11T16:18:56.729-04:00John,
"I have yet to have found where she st...John,<br /><br />"I have yet to have found where she states that Western thought believes objects are projections of one subjectivity."<br /><br />I believe Rand made it quite clear who she was speaking of when she mentions those who assert and attempt to practice "primacy of consciousness". Some of her more notable comments on these concepts are in "The Ayn Rand Lexicon" which is available online here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/primacy_of_existence_vs_primacy_of_consciousness.html .RichardBarneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17185784949325429557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-4514786078900592152010-06-11T16:09:19.200-04:002010-06-11T16:09:19.200-04:00John,
"If the 'axiom' of consciousne...John,<br /><br />"If the 'axiom' of consciousness is derived from the axiom of existence, the 'axiom' of consciousness cannot very well be an axiom, can it?"<br /><br />No. I believe what you intend is "irreducible primary". No, consciousness isn't an irreducible primary in that it presupposes existence which, unless you can reasonably demonstrate something even "existence" presupposes, is irreducible. Nevertheless, "consciousness" can be an axiom if further concepts are derived from consciousness as the starting point. "Axiom" as you defined it here is merely a placeholder effectively saying - "All of what I'm about to assert begins from this point." Many things can be an axiom, however, there is really only one irreducible primary - existence - from which even consciousness is derived, but only after a long chain of derivation as physicists, chemists, biologists will attest.RichardBarneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17185784949325429557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-40008262589605578242010-06-11T16:00:39.546-04:002010-06-11T16:00:39.546-04:00John, a "consciousness" with nothing to ...John, a "consciousness" with nothing to be conscious of - including itself - isn't consciousness. "Consciousness" is, after a long chain of derivation, a product of existence, not the other way around. As seems reasonably clear, consciousness is derivative of life which is derivative of chemistry which is derivative of physics which is the most basic study and description we have of "exists". On what basis does one make the claim of consciousness without that from which it is derived? Unwarranted posturing?<br /><br />That you can't dismiss the assertion "primacy of scripture" unless scripture, in fact, exists and someone exists who is aware of it (consciousness) to do the dismissing rather makes the point that existence has primacy and consciousness and scripture do not. Of course, because scripture is a product of consciousness, both existence and consciousness come before scripture. Consciousness is derivative of existence. Scripture is derivative of consciousness.<br /><br />As many objectivists are aware, Rand called "existence" and "consciousness" self-evident in that for there to be consciousness, there must exist that which is conscious (the one doing the questioning) AND for a thing to be conscious there must be something of which it is conscious. Because consciousness appears only derived from life, that consciousness is at least aware of itself. Of what we know of life, it is derived from other things which means that there is necessarily something for a consciousness to be aware of beyond itself.<br /><br />Again, if you make the claim of "consciousness" somehow not derived of life which is itself derived of other things, I'd like to know what your support is for such an assertion. If it is not open to observation and question, for all intents and purposes it does not exist except in one's imagination.<br /><br />Existence does not necessarily mean there is consciousness, however, if there is consciousness, there is necessarily existence. To claim that non-existence has consciousness is a contradiction in terms and, in any case, a claim impossible for any human being to justify making except as a symptom of utter insanity.RichardBarneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17185784949325429557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-7590420542170214712010-06-11T14:44:34.959-04:002010-06-11T14:44:34.959-04:00Hello John,
Thank you for your comments, and for ...Hello John,<br /><br />Thank you for your comments, and for complimenting my writing. I’m supposing you have other objections against Objectivism beyond those which you have elucidated here. But for every point of criticism that you’ve raised so far, I have addressed them <a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2010/06/answering-hutchinsons-critique-of.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />I must admit that I am puzzled by your sudden decision not to continue the discussion which you started with me. You made this decision even before you’ve had a chance to see my response to your objections. So something must have turned you off. <br /><br />You say that “it is self-evident that [my] form of disputation is to blow off [my] interlocutors by ad hominem than address the question,” but I have no idea what you’re talking about. I expend a lot of energy addressing the questions that are posed to me, both those which are posted in the comments sections of my own blogs, as well as those which are published elsewhere. I do not rely on ad hominems, but rather focus on the issues that are raised. I’m surprised that someone as thoughtful as your own initial comment suggested about yourself would come back suddenly and compare me to a Vatican cardinal. You call me “a partisan,” but it is unclear what specifically this is supposed to mean (are Christians not “partisan”?), and say “otherwise” that you “would ask [me] to humor [you].” If you deem me “a partisan,” what would I have to be for you to carry on the discussion you started with me?<br /><br />At any rate, I have interacted with your comments, and if you think I sought simply to “blow you off” through the use of ad hominems, please point out the specific instances. <br /><br />As for the definition of ‘axiom’, Wikipedia is not Objectivism’s source of definitions. Rand provides the following definition of ‘axiom’ as it is understood within the context of Objectivism:<br /><br />“An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.” (<i>For the New Intellectual</i>, p. 155)<br /><br />So, I hope you’ve been humored. Even if you aren’t, you’ve surely been answered.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-7680936721717532542010-06-11T12:43:13.979-04:002010-06-11T12:43:13.979-04:00Dawson:
I am not particularly interested in carry...Dawson:<br /><br />I am not particularly interested in carrying on this discussion as it is self-evident that your form of disputation is to blow off your interlocutors by ad hominem rather than address the question. Thus you are as beyond discourse as a Vatican cardinal. And indeed, you are a partisan. Otherwise, I would ask you to humor me.<br /><br />However, one of the problems with Rand's axiom of consciousness that you seem to confirm in your sentence "The Primacy of Existence essentially means existence is an irreducible primary upon which everything in reality depends and grounds" may be one of definitions.<br /><br />A Wikipedia definition of an axiom "is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived." If the 'axiom' of consciousness is derived from the axiom of existence, the 'axiom' of consciousness cannot very well be an axiom, can it?John Hutchinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209178822938252226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-10742499726378929092010-06-11T04:11:17.177-04:002010-06-11T04:11:17.177-04:00@John Hutchinson
The fact that you think the Prim...@John Hutchinson<br /><br />The fact that you think the Primacy of Existence is a presumption or presupposition, shows you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about in regard to Objectivism and it's Axioms. It would take a man with great patience to refute all your nonsense and confusion.<br /><br />It absolutely baffles me how or why anyone would try to impugn the Primacy of Existence, or not understand it's meaning. The Primacy of Existence essentially means existence is an irreducible primary upon which everything in reality depends and grounds. Hence, existence has PRIMACY. Why is that so hard for you mystics to understand?The Secular Walkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342572056569966450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-29095256402065474572010-06-10T23:04:39.911-04:002010-06-10T23:04:39.911-04:00(CONTINUED)
But the largest problem I have, is wi...(CONTINUED)<br /><br />But the largest problem I have, is with your Objectivist presumption of the Primacy of Existence. And by that presupposition, you presume to disprove the Christian God because the Scriptures 'affirms the existence of a consciousness on which existence depends.'<br /><br />My question to you is that when you write and project a thought, actually codifying this entity with your keyboard upon electronic media somewhere on the Net; at the point at which you create and communicate it, is not the object that you create a projection of your consciousness? If that is true, does that mean that you do not exist?<br /><br />Now, you might argue that a thought is not a real object or entity. But then I would ask, "Why do you engage in imaginary entities when you spurn the theists for engaging in theirs?" Indeed, the materialist would suggest that there are chemical messages that constitute the physiological components of that thought. You might suggest that you are merely manipulating objects by typing them on an electronic page. But the thought itself is independent of the manner by which you codify it and the tableau on which you inscribe it. <br /><br />It could be argued that any creation that a man creates is a projection of their consciousness at the point of your creating it. It would seem that the logic of the Primacy of Existence denies any form of creation, including that belonging to mankind. <br /><br />If my reasoning is sound, it would seem to destroy your disproof of God and challenge the presumption of the absolutist maxim of the Primacy of Existence. (I am, by no means, suggesting that this proves God's existence.)<br /><br />JohnJohn Hutchinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209178822938252226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-83455236821377620972010-06-10T23:03:23.152-04:002010-06-10T23:03:23.152-04:00Dawson:
Despite the great extent to which I disag...Dawson:<br /><br />Despite the great extent to which I disagree with you, I must confess to appreciating the lucidity by which you present your case.<br /><br />First, I suggest that in upholding Objectivism as the criteria by which all things are judged, you are engaging in just another form of Presuppositionalism. I quote from one your blogs:<br /><br />"The primacy of existence is a fundamental precondition of proof."<br /><br />Is this any different in kind from those who uphold the primacy of Scriptures as a fundamental precondition of understanding the cosmos? <br /><br />I don't have a problem with Presuppositionalism as A form of proof. My problem is when it is made THE only form of proof. (It is also badly grounded on a theological and Scriptural basis but that is neither here nor there.) As a form of proof, it is useful if it presents an internal coherence and a correspondence to reality. I.E. Does the Christian worldview demonstrate a coherent consistency with objective reality. Do those assertions in Scriptures, which can be measured, be validated? Or in your Objectivist faith, do your axioms stand up to objective reality and logic? <br /><br />I have several problems with your viewpoint. Are objects necessary for consciousness to exist? <br /><br />"a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms" (Atlas Shrugged, Galt’s Speech)<br /><br />It makes consciousness not an entity unto itself but both entity and relationship between itself and its object.<br /><br />I would submit that just as existence can exist without consciousness, consciousness can exist with nothing to be conscious of, including itself. Consciousness can be immersed in a void, within and outside of itself. It would not be a contradiction in terms, but rather a living hell. Indeed, in US military experiments, 'volunteers' were experimented upon with sensory deprivation. Most exited displaying symptoms of temporary insanity. If that occurs with a mild case of deprivation of objects with which to dwell upon...<br /><br />Another point of order is that you suggest that other philosophies / theologies suggest that consciousness creates existence or objective reality. Outside of existentialism, I don't know of any Western philosophy or Christian orthodoxy that asserts that. I don't think that Rand accuses those other worldviews of that. My understanding is that most believe that flawed perception skews the comprehension of 'the object as is'. The person who is colour blind, (cannot see green and red), cannot perceive the object as is. As all persons have internal biases and flawed structures by which they decode the cosmos, these act as similar filters from seeing 'things as are'. (Christianity's version is of the 'plank in the eye') I think Rand rages at this idea that things cannot be perceived as they are. But I have yet to have found where she states that Western thought believes objects are projections of one subjectivity.<br /><br />(TO BE CONTINUED)John Hutchinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209178822938252226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-62851178118246451912010-06-09T12:57:51.611-04:002010-06-09T12:57:51.611-04:00Forget about mutual engagement or convincing the w...Forget about mutual engagement or convincing the wilfully ignorant.<br /><br />Just write about whatever needs to be written. Whether it's an original philosophical analysis of some issue or a response to some particularly ignorant or fallacious blog post. You can write clearly and convincingly without worrying about actually convincing anyone in particular. In fact, I'd wager that over-concern about persuading particular misguided people will detract from your writing's potential inherent clarity and rigour! Throwing off that burden will, at least, relieve you of some annoyance.<br /><br />There's my unsolicited advice. Enjoy!Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09604208085934821426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-78203777990133801092010-06-09T10:21:01.890-04:002010-06-09T10:21:01.890-04:00Here's a thing that irks me a bit. Your commen...Here's a thing that irks me a bit. Your comment has to be moderated and edited on pretty much every Christian site before it's posted. It's a minor gripe, but it doesn't bode well for those who want to engage in a no holds barred approach to the subject. I had a few comments not approved because I told a creationist at Aristophrenium he was severely misinformed, and apparently that's a strawman and Ad Hominem. However, when ryft goes on a tirade about how Atheism is arrogant no less than 3 times, it's absolutely fine. <br /><br />I'll be publishing something on my blog along the lines of this discussion, but I almost guarantee it will fall on deaf ears, much like all the conversations I've had with the staff on Aristophrenium. One point gets addressed, 10 go unchallenged, and a post gets made on their site claiming superiority within the week. <br /><br />I guess that's what apologetics is about - ignoring points, then claiming victory.Tavarishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16944997549708501182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-75857070956943802132010-06-06T14:51:14.749-04:002010-06-06T14:51:14.749-04:00Referring to this, JH?
http://aynrandlexicon.com/l...Referring to this, JH?<br />http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/zero--reification_of.htmlJasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09604208085934821426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-18060273895030873622010-06-06T13:47:46.574-04:002010-06-06T13:47:46.574-04:00If he postulates something prior to the universe, ...If he postulates something prior to the universe, than in what meaningful way is he describing the creation or beginning of the universe. He has simply moved the goal post further back and not answered the question. Is not treating nothing as something a logical fallacy, the reflected zero or something?Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-10991382592891214722010-06-06T10:08:51.162-04:002010-06-06T10:08:51.162-04:00I just read part of this stretmediq fellow's c...I just read part of this stretmediq fellow's case for deism. Ignoring some poor use of technical vocabulary, the first major error I found regards the concept 'nothing'.<br /><br />He reifies the concept. He answers the 'why is there something rather than nothing?' riddle, with the concept of 'something from nothing'. He realises that this is a failure of an answer if we define "nothing" as 'void that is absolutely "without property"'. He says this definition, this 'materialist notion', is the problem, so should be rejected.<br /><br />Seeing the clear impossibility for "absolute nothingness" to produce the universe, he concludes that the "nothing" from which something emerged must actually be not "absolute", that is: it must be something.<br /><br />So he redefines a word ('nothing') to make it cohere with a concept ('something from nothing') that constitutes the solution to a problem ('why is there something rather than nothing?') that becomes a non-problem when you substitute in the new definition: 'why is there something rather than something else?' Answer: because stuff changes. No longer a logical or philosophical problem. For more detailed answers, check modern physics.<br /><br />Back to stretmediq's essay. For no obvious reason, he comes to define this new non-absolute-nothing as a concept. So the universe came from a concept, concepts exist in minds, this first concept must be in God's mind. Yeah, right.<br /><br />Seems later on he talks about quantum mechanics. But if he's building upon this mistake, I don't see any reason to peruse the rest of the post.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />JasonJasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09604208085934821426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-28694720901945575562010-06-06T04:33:19.408-04:002010-06-06T04:33:19.408-04:00@Dawson Bethrick
Hey Dawson I want to help you ou...@Dawson Bethrick<br /><br />Hey Dawson I want to help you out by suggesting a potential topic for you to create content on, since you really don't have a Theistic nemesis/rival anymore since Paul Manata is gone, and Chris Bolt is just not with it or a challenge.<br /><br />I think you might find it interesting to interact with and provide a refutation of this Deist named stretmediq. He basically claims in this article that he has a scientific model that proves Deism. He asserts what I see to be the Primacy of Consciousness, and claims that based on the evidence, God exists and is an awareness upon which the cosmos is contingent.<br /><br />Here is the article:<br /><br />http://www.positivedeism.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4222<br /><br />It's the first entry under scientific deism. I just thought this might be of interest to you considering your track record and stern stance against promoters of the Primacy of Consciousness Metaphysics. It might be hard to read the whole article because it's rather long and boring. I was able to finish it but it took much discipline to force myself to finish it.<br /><br />Cheers.The Secular Walkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342572056569966450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-91270247451845393242010-06-05T16:26:39.799-04:002010-06-05T16:26:39.799-04:00On questions of "what is the fundamental subs...On questions of "what is the fundamental substance and fundamental nature of existence", I usually begin with what tools I have of my own and, when those have been stretched to their potential, ask a physicist.<br /><br />The last thing I'd do is ask a priest. They seem to reject the efficacy not only of their own tools, but mine and those of others to acquire anything smacking of genuine knowledge.<br /><br />I'm just not that cynical. I trust my senses, I trust my mind and I trust that a trained and experienced physicist understands the fundamental nature of existence a bit better than I do. In any event, "arrogance" is thinking you or those you admire can't sometimes or even frequently get it all wrong. I don't rest on my own laurels, but I also don't rest on the alleged laurels of others.<br /><br />I question, I question again and then I question again. If there's still time, well, you know ...RichardBarneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17185784949325429557noreply@blogger.com