tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post2857734974668212131..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: A Reply to Matthias on Objective Knowledge vs. the Subjectivism of Theism Bahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-26822257463510215752014-01-28T23:12:09.771-05:002014-01-28T23:12:09.771-05:00Dawson,
I'd like to modify what I wrote, as I...Dawson,<br /><br />I'd like to modify what I wrote, as I found it to be incomplete. Here's how it should read: <br /><br />"Objectivism avoids such inconsistencies, since in all cases, reality is the final court of appeal, and not "society" "tradition," "the agreed upon" or "the supernatural."<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-91343627771367080612014-01-28T21:41:42.809-05:002014-01-28T21:41:42.809-05:00Dawson,
Thanks for the comments!
You wrote: &qu...Dawson,<br /><br />Thanks for the comments!<br /><br />You wrote: "Warden sees in Objectivism's emphasis of MP only the argument that I have formed from it against theism. He apparently does not recognize any importance to understanding the nature of the relationship between consciosuness and its objects and its implications for knowledge and philosophy, regardless of its implications for theism. And yet he has stated (here) that 'No truly objective person would be interested in adopting a definition of metaphysical primacy that is skewed to serve one metaphysical viewpoint.'"<br /><br />Yet that is exactly what he's done, i.e., adopted "a definition... skewed to serve [his] metaphysical viewpoint"! Where did that definition come from and what is he relying upon to form it? <br /><br />I'm also amazed how quickly theists resort to the "agreed upon" approach when it comes to, in this case, definitions; but then they run from it when it comes to morality. Objectivism avoids such inconsistencies, since in all cases, reality is the final court of appeal, and not "society" "tradition" or the "agreed upon." <br /><br />Ydemoc Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-79687605994305743082014-01-28T19:20:49.004-05:002014-01-28T19:20:49.004-05:00Hi Ydemoc,
It's good to hear from you!
I can...Hi Ydemoc,<br /><br />It's good to hear from you!<br /><br />I can definitely appreciate limited supplies of time! But somehow I've been able to be quite productive this month. <br /><br />In the meantime, I'm still waiting for Rick Warden (<a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2014/01/rands-primacy-of-existence-argument.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>) to cite the source of the alternative definition of 'metaphysical primacy' which he has presented in his blog. His first reply to my request for him to cite the original source for the definition he gives for MP looked very much like a very weak excuse. He wrote:<br /><br /><<<b>Perhaps the reason I did not offer a third-party source is because the only group that seems to be supporting this argument is the Rand objectivist one. That, however, does not give Randian objectivists license to avoid basic definitions of the words "primacy" and "metaphysics" in creating their own definitions. I believe I have done justice to both words included in the phrase.</b>>><br /><br />Warden sees in Objectivism's emphasis of MP only the argument that I have formed from it against theism. He apparently does not recognize any importance to understanding the nature of the relationship between consciosuness and its objects and its implications for knowledge and philosophy, regardless of its implications for theism. And yet he has stated (<a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2014/01/three-refutations-of-objectivism.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>) that "No truly objective person would be interested in adopting a definition of metaphysical primacy that is skewed to serve one metaphysical viewpoint."<br /><br />He apparently thinks that the term 'metaphysical primacy' should be defined in a way that allows for all sorts of differing positions on metaphysics, regardless of their truth value. And he calls that "objective"? He seems content to use terms only for the impression they may invoke in readers, not for their actual meanings.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-68612185721474877012014-01-28T17:37:20.892-05:002014-01-28T17:37:20.892-05:00Dawson,
Looking forward to reading it!
I haven&#...Dawson,<br /><br />Looking forward to reading it!<br /><br />I haven't had much time in the past few days to contribute, but I've been keeping tabs on things and am certainly enjoying reading all the comments and blog entries. <br /><br />Ydemoc Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.com