tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post7304123491711129570..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: The Moral Code of LifeBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-45620955849323479902014-12-13T19:15:23.575-05:002014-12-13T19:15:23.575-05:00Hi David,
It's nice to hear from you again.
...Hi David,<br /><br />It's nice to hear from you again.<br /><br />I'm reminded of something Rand once said, to the effect that "you can't discuss it and integrate it at the same time" - where "it" refers to some new item of knowledge that has a significant relationship to ideas you have accepted. I've always wondered if Rand should have said "I" (and spoke only for herself) instead of "you" (implying everyone under the sun), but I think there's some truth to this. It's one reason why I think live debates are impractical. <br /><br />The broader point is that we cannot be too careful in our thinking. I would like to see some of Rand's detractors become at least a little more careful in their thinking. But if we become emotionally invested in a certain position, especially one whose tie to reality is questionable, this will cloud our thinking.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-36083624184866687052014-12-13T11:09:39.531-05:002014-12-13T11:09:39.531-05:00I often peruse your archives, and there are severa...I often peruse your archives, and there are several posts that I find myself visiting again and again. This is one of them. Now, a year after you responded to my question, I noticed a key phrase that removed all haze from my understanding of this issue. <br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"A "duty" is not the result of one's own choices and actions. But a moral responsibility is."<br /><br />I guess it takes a little time to notice everything! I think I was trying a little too hard before. This phrase jumped right out at me today. I'm happy. :-)<br /><br />David BarwickDavid Barwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09078912689141078313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-75859131512543822802013-12-29T01:59:07.039-05:002013-12-29T01:59:07.039-05:00If I have a child, then as a consequence of that a...If I have a child, then as a consequence of that action I have essentially forced a person into a situation where he or she is totally dependent upon me for his or her survival (in fact, all of his or her values). By extension, if I neglect that child, then I have forced him or her to suffer and/or die. This is morally the same as forcing *anyone* into a situation where they will suffer and/or die. This is morally the same as harming some random person on the sidewalk. I don’t want to do the latter action because it is not in my self-interest to do so; a world where people can freely harm one another is not a world I want to live in. Therefore, by the same principle, I must care for the children I bring into this world until such a time as they can pursue values on their own.<br /><br />(I realize that I’ve described a pretty spartan version of parenthood, but it was just for the sake of illustration.)<br /><br />I hope that I’ve related this idea coherently, as I’ve indulged in liquor tonight and we all know what effects that can have on communication. I submit my thoughts for critique, and, as always,<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />David BarwickAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16764290936101914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-80963672602148532022013-12-29T01:57:21.639-05:002013-12-29T01:57:21.639-05:00Hi Dawson,
This was very helpful. I am glad to se...Hi Dawson,<br /><br />This was very helpful. I am glad to see that my moral intuition was correct, and I appreciate you correcting my terms and explaining the concept of moral responsibility. I thought all this over for much of the day and struggled with part of it, but I think I have come to a satisfactory conclusion.<br /><br />The part I struggled with was this: let's say I do have a child, and I choose to neglect the responsibility that comes with it. So what? If there were no laws against it, who would care? What if it would benefit me in some way to no longer have a child? I struggled to explain why I *must accept* moral responsibility. <br /><br />I think this part of your response is the key to the answer:<br />“These obligations have everything to do with acting on behalf of one’s own values,and they also often involve recognition of other individuals’ rights to their values (such as when those choices can affect other people’s lives).”<br /><br />because I needed to tie my responsibilities to my self-interest. Otherwise, I can’t see a reason that any sort of obligations obtain under any moral philosophy. (I don’t break into houses = I benefit by not going to jail ~ I agree to abide by the laws of society = I benefit from the protection that those laws provide. Etc.) So here’s what I finally came up with:<br /><br />[continued...]Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16764290936101914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-68519555179131061792013-12-28T05:30:33.892-05:002013-12-28T05:30:33.892-05:00Some choose not to have children because of the en...Some choose not to have children because of the enormous responsibility this involves. If they do not want such a responsibility, they should not have children. And this is entirely moral; no one has a “duty” to have children. There is nothing morally wrong with this; on the contrary, if they do not want the responsibility of taking care of a child, there’s everything morally right in not having a child. <br /><br />However, if one chooses to have a child, he necessarily accepts the responsibility that comes with it as a result of the choice to have a child. Morally speaking, he cannot make the choice to have the child and then later evade the responsibility of taking care of that child. He cannot pretend that his actions do not have consequences. That would be a denial of causality. He would be trying to evade reality in that case.<br /><br />I did not get married until I was 38 years old. Prior to this, since my teens, I never thought I’d ever get married, let alone become a father. Since I was quite young I was explicitly cognizant of the huge undertaking – the enormous responsibility – of being a husband and a father. Throughout my twenties and the first half of my thirties, I wanted nothing to do with such responsibilities. So I governed my choices and actions accordingly: I did not get married, and I did not father any children. But then I found someone who affected me differently from anyone else I had ever met, and I chose to marry her. In 2008 we had a daughter. I accepted the responsibilities of married life and of being a father. And I act accordingly. Since my daughter was born, she has occupied the center of my life. My love for her is inviolable. <br /><br />I can only wonder if Christians truly have a comparable bond with their children. After all, their storybook depicts its chief patriarch, Abraham, willingly going through the motions of preparing his only child as a burnt offering on command from his god (cf. Gen. 22). If a supernatural being instructed me to sacrifice my daughter, I would tell it to go to hell. But Christians since the days of Paul the Apostle point to Abraham as a pinnacle of faith, a model of obedience expected of believers. <br /><br />Naturally, there’s a lot more to say on this, but I’m a bit busy today, and I’m hoping I’ve answered the essentials of your question. If you have more questions, please feel free to send in a comment.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-67735917882410690342013-12-28T05:30:22.671-05:002013-12-28T05:30:22.671-05:00Hi David,
You ask a great question. The answer to...Hi David,<br /><br />You ask a great question. The answer to your question revolves around distinguishing between “duties” and <i>responsibility</i>. The two are not the same. A “duty” is an obligation one has essentially for simply existing. In her essay “Causality Versus Duty,” Rand defines ‘duty’ as follows (<i>Philosophy: Who Needs It</i>, p. 95):<br /><br /><<<b>The meaning of the term “duty” is: the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest.</b>>><br /><br />(For more about ‘duty’, see <a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/duty.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.)<br /><br />This is *not* the same thing as a moral responsibility. <br /><br />A “duty” is not the result of one’s own choices and actions. But a moral responsibility is. When an individual makes certain choices, certain moral obligations follow as a logical consequence. These obligations have everything to do with acting on behalf of one’s own values, and they also often involve recognition of other individuals’ rights to their values (such as when those choices can affect other people’s lives). <br /><br />If I choose to get into my car and drive down the street, for example, I accept the obligation of driving responsibly – for both my own sake as well as that of anyone else who happens to be on the road at the time. <br /><br />If I choose to have a child, this too is a choice – a choice that I make. With this choice, I accept the responsibility of raising my child as a consequence of the choice to have a child. Objectivism does not teach that our choices and actions have no causal consequence. On the contrary, Objectivism is emphatic in recognizing the consequences of our choices and actions and the responsibilities they involve. We make choices and perform actions in a context of attendant circumstances, and in that context are the responsibilities which necessarily result. Responsibility in this sense is the law of causality applied to our chosen actions.<br /><br />[continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-7804386987676398972013-12-28T01:36:55.544-05:002013-12-28T01:36:55.544-05:00Hey Dawson and commenters,
I have a question I...Hey Dawson and commenters,<br /><br />I have a question I've been struggling with as it pertains to Objectivism and moral philosophy in general. I'm on the verge of coming out as a pretty clear Objectivist, but not fully feathered yet. Let me get to the point:<br /><br />It seems that under Objectivism's moral principles, one has no duties or obligations whatsoever -- not even to one's own children. But it seems to me that one does indeed have obligations to one's own children. We have laws to such an effect. If you willingly let your infant starve to death just because you don't love it (or for any reason, I suppose), it constitutes criminal neglect. Neglect implies a neglect of duties, i.e., duties toward one's children. I'm not saying that U.S. law determines morality, just using that as an example. It does seem to me to be the case that one has an obligation to the relatively helpless persons that one brings into the world. Babies do not choose to be born, to live, or to die. Toddlers cannot pursue values on their own.<br /><br />What does Objectivism (or the principles of Objectivism) say about children? Perhaps those with more experience can guide me.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />David BarwickAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16764290936101914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-51309495909280031812013-11-11T20:55:17.445-05:002013-11-11T20:55:17.445-05:00IP's comment:
"Empiricism cannot substa...<br />IP's comment: <br /><br /><b>"Empiricism cannot substantiate universal propositions."</b> <br /><br />Seems to come from <a href="http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/tag/gordon-clark/" rel="nofollow">Gordon Clark</a>. <br /><br />Clark and "Cornelius Van Til were the two greatest proponents of the presuppositional method of apologetics." <br /><br />Clark rejected empiricism, rationalism, and irrationalism. Like many apologists, he seems to argue against "pure" empiricism and "pure" rationalism as if a mixture of the two was never an option. <br /><br />The key word above is "universal." Like the apologist's use of the word "certainty," it's an absolute that's used to poke holes in worldviews they don't agree with. If a competing worldview isn't "perfect," it's proof of the superiority of their worldview. Philosophies are products of the human mind and hence, can never be "perfect." The imperfection of other worldviews provides zero support of the Christian worldview. What Christians do is called the fallacy of <a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis/" rel="nofollow">Privileging the Hypothesis</a>.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00443631599483141361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-84796078236092482222013-11-11T19:37:02.052-05:002013-11-11T19:37:02.052-05:00Irate wrote: “Empiricism cannot substantiate unive...Irate wrote: “Empiricism cannot substantiate universal propositions."<br /><br />Justin responded: “and just what are universal propositions composed of? concepts. and where are concepts integrated from and what are they validated against? empirical sense perception.”<br /><br />Right. Like so many mystics, Irate seems to have the impression that “propositions” are these freely floating phenomena that are treated as unanalyzable primaries. But in fact, this is not the case. Propositions are constituted by concepts. Just as there can be no propositions without concepts, one cannot form propositions until he has formed those concepts which inform those propositions. Take for example the proposition “all men are mortal.” Here we have a proposition consisting of four different concepts which in turn rest on more fundamental concepts. Where did they come from? Christianity provides no answers here. In fact, Christians often treat “beliefs” as though they were irreducible primaries. But the same is the case with any belief: beliefs rest on concepts. The belief <i>that</i> “today is a weekday,” for example, consists of concepts. How can one have this belief without the constituent concepts informing it? Blank out.<br /><br />Christianity has no theory of concepts. It has no distinctively Christian analysis of concepts or explanation of how the human mind forms them. For all one can say about Christianity, it likely would not hold that the human mind forms any concepts to begin with if it did have anything to say about concepts. Desperately eager to make their imaginary god seem real and have relevance in their lives, Christians artificially try to make everything point to their god. Thus you have folks like Van Til coming along and saying that the “Trinity” somehow explains “the one and the many” problem which puzzled ancient philosophers. But this buys into the very falsehood which many of the ancients assumed without warrant, namely that “universals” are some kind of extra-mental, metaphysical phenomena, like “immaterial” concretes (if that could even make sense) that are meaningful apart from human mental activity, and that the human mind somehow passively absorbs them from whatever source whence they come. The human mind is thus irrelevant on this analysis, and along with it you get the idea that “universal propositions” are instances of these metaphysical concretes alleged to have originated in the thinking of an invisible magic being’s mind. Consequently, an understanding of what concepts actually are and how the human mind functions in forming them, is systematically cut off – such an idea is completely out of the question on this view since “universals” are metaphysical rather than epistemological. Thus the very notion of “Christian epistemology” is inherently oxymoronic – it has no epistemology to begin with. It’s just “believe and then understand.”<br /><br /><br />Notice also that Irate simply <i>asserts</i> his point as if it were some incontestable truth without need of explanation or justification. And yet he states to me: “stating your opinions as fact seems to be your method of discussion.” This is just another example of apologetic projection: he accuses me of what he himself does so regularly as a matter of course that he’s not even aware that he’s doing it himself, and yet he nowhere shows that I am guilty of the charge he levels at me.<br /><br />I’m glad these aren’t my problems!<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-11458320960154973122013-11-11T17:39:00.417-05:002013-11-11T17:39:00.417-05:00At least Irate grew enough to find his own ignoran...At least Irate grew enough to find his own ignorance of Objectivism – as he puts it – tiresome. <br /><br />Irate finds it inconvenient that my moral theory is based on the fundamental facts of man’s nature. This resting on facts is “extreme” in his view, an objection he does not explain. He tries to divert the discussion to baiting questions about “empiricism,” again exhibiting that he knows nothing about Objectivism. He insinuates that I do not have “a solid grasp of the fundamentals of logic” while never indicating where exactly I have breached the fundamentals of logic, let alone <i>how</i> I have allegedly done so. He asserts (again without substantiation) that what I have done is just like what Sye Ten Bruggencate does, and yet Irate himself evades direct questions, accuses me of begging the question left and right (with no attempt to justify such charges – which is typical of Sye himself), and feigns that the discussion has grown “tiresome” apparently only because his assertions are not swallowed whole upon his issuing them. <br /><br />I laid out a series of questions fundamental to the topic of morality, and while I have shown in my entry how the moral code of life addresses them, Irate makes silly excuses for not addressing them. At the same time, we are presumably to believe that his worldview has unassailable principles in this department, but unfortunately we’ll never get to see them because Irate is afraid they’ll be rejected.<br /><br />Irate scolds me for not taking the religious belief of an afterlife seriously, and yet makes zero effort to substantiate this belief. He points out that many people in the past have believed in an afterlife (as if this were news). But so what? Are we to suppose all of a sudden that people are infallible? People in the past believed that slavery was perfectly moral as well, that mental problems are caused by demons, that the earth is flat, that the sun and stars revolve around the earth, that using force against “heretics” is a perfectly legitimate form of dealing with them, etc. It seems that it is Irate’s own critical faculties, not mine, that are questionable here.<br /><br />Irate fails to bring any sustainable challenge against the moral code of life and the thesis that religion offers only the code of death in a variety of guises. He does not pinpoint any actual flaw in the moral code of life, he does not cite any facts on behalf of any viable alternative to the moral code of life, and he demonstrates over and over again that all he can really do is merely scold me for holding the views that I hold. His whole mission is one of negating, not identifying, destroying values rather than creating them.<br /><br />Irate huffs that “Objectivism is fundamentally flawed at its very core,” which I take to mean that he rejects a moral theory that is encapsulated by the exhortation “live long and prosper.” This leaves only one alternative: “sacrifice yourself and die young.” This is the alternative modeled by Jesus joyfully going to the cross around the age of 30, a model held up by the churchmen like a scarecrow. Irate himself makes it clear that he wants me to be scared and even “terrified” of his imaginary deity. The attitude he displays stems from his frustration that his threats do not take with me. His claims that I have made some kind of logical blunder or that my view is somehow “fundamentally flawed,” is all smoke and mirrors intended to obscure the true nature of his resentment – namely his spite for the thinking human individual. <br /><br />This is the code of death on display for us. Irate suggests that there are throngs of Clarkians waiting to take over when the Vantillians leave the stage. My, how formidable they must imagine themselves to be! And yet, when I say bring it on, he tucks his tail between his legs and scrambles off in a tiff. <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-80874472280123645622013-11-11T11:53:14.053-05:002013-11-11T11:53:14.053-05:00IratePotentate:
Empiricism cannot substantiate u...IratePotentate: <br /><br /><b>Empiricism cannot substantiate universal propositions.</b> <br /><br />So, we cannot trust the empirical evidence of miracles or Jesus being raised from the dead? NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-56951249397369467372013-11-11T11:42:27.175-05:002013-11-11T11:42:27.175-05:00"Truth does not change based on the observer,..."Truth does not change based on the observer, no matter how much we want to think our ideas and convictions matter."<br /><br />Why... Irate you sound like an objectivist:)Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-53028783199845476232013-11-11T11:34:25.268-05:002013-11-11T11:34:25.268-05:00"Empiricism cannot substantiate universal pro..."Empiricism cannot substantiate universal propositions."<br /><br />and just what are universal propositions composed of? concepts. and where are concepts integrated from and what are they validated against? empirical sense perception. Try to pick up that chair you are sitting in all you like Irate. Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-2453647124672391682013-11-11T08:47:00.883-05:002013-11-11T08:47:00.883-05:00Irate,
These two are contradictory:
Objectivism ...Irate,<br /><br />These two are contradictory:<br /><br /><i>Objectivism is fundamentally flawed at its very core</i><br /><br />and<br /><br /><i>Truth does not change based on the observer</i><br /><br />If you get to understand why, then maybe you'll understand objectivism a bit better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-23436792998104915172013-11-11T07:24:46.071-05:002013-11-11T07:24:46.071-05:00IratePotentate,
Does that mean you won't me a...IratePotentate,<br /><br />Does that mean you won't me answering the six questions I posed above? <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-25655472532981541792013-11-11T07:17:07.496-05:002013-11-11T07:17:07.496-05:00*sigh*
This is growing tiresome.
Objectivism is ...*sigh*<br /><br />This is growing tiresome.<br /><br />Objectivism is fundamentally flawed at its very core. It is indeed subject to the very limitations I identified. Simply stating that it is not may make you comfortable, but it does not make it so. Perhaps someone with a shred of intellectual honesty will read my comments and consider the absurdity of your claims.<br /><br />But stating your opinions as fact seems to be your method of discussion, and so I leave you to it. See, unlike others, it does not bother me in the least what anyone thinks or believes. Truth does not change based on the observer, no matter how much we want to think our ideas and convictions matter.<br /><br />IratePotentatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02114958996659567326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-54159046807756191352013-11-11T06:19:47.263-05:002013-11-11T06:19:47.263-05:00IratePotentate,
You wrote: “Empiricism cannot sub...IratePotentate,<br /><br />You wrote: “Empiricism cannot substantiate universal propositions.”<br /><br />I suggest you take some time to learn more about Objectivism. Objectivism is not a casualty of the problem you cite here. Objectivism has a full theory of concepts – a theory explaining how concepts are formed on the basis of perceptual input. Thus we are not bound to the perceptual level of awareness. But your comment suggests that you are completely unaware of Objectivist epistemology. <br /><br />Meanwhile, notice that the bible presents no theory of concepts whatsoever. Thus it has no account for knowledge. To put it mildly, that’s quite a liability.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-88944567616327343292013-11-11T06:15:59.229-05:002013-11-11T06:15:59.229-05:00You wrote: “And by the by, I don't answer your...You wrote: “And by the by, I don't answer your questions because you have already established that you don't accept my answers or definitions.”<br /><br />Look, my questions have been laid out for all comers to take a shot at. If you choose not to address them, do not blame me for your choice. I would think that someone who likes to think of himself as guided by an omnipotent and infallible supernatural being could handle it when puny little insignificant men like me do not accept every utterance that comes out of your mouth as though it were divinely authorized. It shows little confidence on your part if you’re reluctant to share your answers for fear of them being rejected. If you think your position is right, state it and try to defend it. Otherwise, if Clarkians adopt your reticence, they surely are a sorry bunch. <br /><br />You wrote: “If, for the sake of discussion, I define Biblical morality, you are to allow me that definition so long as I am consistent in its use.”<br /><br />I’m not sure what you mean by “allow me that definition.” I can neither allow nor disallow you anything. So far as I am concerned, you are free to do as you please. But this does not mean that I have any obligation to accept your definitions. I very well may find them faulty. But I would tell you why, and you might learn something in the process. You would like to learn, wouldn’t you?<br /><br />You wrote: “To deny me the ability to define my terms is to deny my ability to communicate at all.”<br /><br />I cannot deny you anything, Irate, other than posting comments on my blog entries after they’re 24 hours old.<br /><br />You wrote: “I understand you assume you have these things figured out for yourself already and so try to cut me off at the pass,”<br /><br />I have blog entries on these and other related topics going back to March 2005. Have you read any of them? There’s a lot there. I lay it all out for all comers to examine, rebut, accept, wince at, walk away from, laugh at, etc. <br /><br />You wrote: “but you don't, and your hubris is both discourteous and immature.”<br /><br />What do you take as an indication of hubris on my part? Is it simply that I do not believe in imaginary beings? Or is it that you don’t like the fact that I think your god is an imaginary being? If you think I’m discourteous and immature, why do you try to engage me? I asked this already, but you do not answer me. <br /><br />You wrote: “I willingly accept your definitions and by them try to understand what you are trying to communicate. This is the basis on which all communication is built.”<br /><br />Definitions are indeed important, which is one of the (many) reasons why I think the bible is so deficient as a guide for human life (cf., its failure to define so many crucial terms). But definitions are not unquestionable. Just as the concepts to which they pertain need to be formed by an objective process, so do definitions. Where is any process for forming concepts and their definitions laid out in “Scripture”? Just asking.<br /><br />Now, as for my six questions, would you like to start there?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-52400147551737435622013-11-11T06:15:35.464-05:002013-11-11T06:15:35.464-05:00IratePotentate,
You wrote: “You stress biology in...IratePotentate,<br /><br />You wrote: “You stress biology in the extreme.”<br /><br />It’s not clear what you mean by this. Do you think a position can be <i>too</i> dependent on facts or something? That’s all I’m doing – pointing to fundamental facts about man’s nature which inform and support my position. Man is a biological organism. Do you disagree with this? Do you think we are rocks or something? We are not inanimate objects. If you cut me, I bleed. I have organs. I have blood vessels. I have bones. I have muscles. I have a hefty layer of fat. I continually face the fundamental alternative of life vs. death throughout every moment of my existence. Other biological organisms do too. How am I not a biological organism?<br /><br />Or, do you think that I should ignore the fundamental facts of man’s nature – such as those that I have identified – for some reason? If so, what is that reason? What possible justification can there be for ignoring relevant facts? <br /><br />Or, are you saying that I am overlooking something? If so, what specifically do you think I’m overlooking? Identify it. Be careful not to misidentify it. Try to apply the principle of objectivity if at all possible. How is whatever it may be that you think I’m ignoring not part of our nature as biological organisms? I have already argued that <a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2010/06/biological-nature-of-consciousness.html" rel="nofollow">consciousness is biological</a>. So focusing on that would be a dead end for you.<br /><br />You wrote: “Are then those aspects of reality that are empirically verifiable the only reality that we can know and is valid?”<br /><br />I go by reason. Reason is not confined to the perceptual level. It begins with perception and is based on it, but it builds on it <i>conceptually</i> - thus expanding my awareness beyond the perceptual level. That’s how we can have at least basic knowledge of <i>all</i> men as opposed to only those whom I’ve perceived firsthand. That is what Objectivism means by conceptual hierarchy. I go only by what I can learn by means of reason. I know, this annoys religionists to no end. But that’s not my problem.<br /><br />Moreover, I’m quite careful, as hopefully you’ve noticed by now, not to confuse the imaginary with the real. This slashes off all of religion’s baloney categorically. <br /><br />[continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-77818895111052242762013-11-11T06:07:44.245-05:002013-11-11T06:07:44.245-05:00Empiricism cannot substantiate universal propositi...Empiricism cannot substantiate universal propositions.<br /><br />Stew on that for as long as you like, but I suspect Dawson already knows the truth of it.IratePotentatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02114958996659567326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-85254625542015466832013-11-10T23:37:30.291-05:002013-11-10T23:37:30.291-05:00Dawson,
Irate wrote: "I'm more than will...Dawson,<br /><br />Irate wrote: "I'm more than willing to concede that it may not exist, as I live and move in the existential wasteland where all things are possible and no stone must be left unturned; do you have the steel to walk that wasteland with me?"<br /><br />You wrote: "I have no idea what you’re talking about."<br /><br />Count me as another who doesn't understand what Irate is saying here. However, within this yet-to- be-clarified paragraph, I was able to pick out at least one self-contradictory fragment, which is: "...all things are possible." <br /><br />The question now is: Will Irate be able to identify why it is that this fragment contradicts itself? <br /><br />Ydemoc Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-33666704047448219752013-11-10T20:32:15.364-05:002013-11-10T20:32:15.364-05:00"You stress biology in the extreme. Are then ..."You stress biology in the extreme. Are then those aspects of reality that are empirically verifiable the only reality that we can know and is valid?"<br /><br />seriously! you actually said that? No the question is if it cant be empirically verifiable how on earth could we lay claim to it being knowledge in the first place or are you in the habit of accepting the arbitrary. Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-47831891039348987952013-11-10T19:39:26.319-05:002013-11-10T19:39:26.319-05:00A non-contradictory worldview you say?
You stress...A non-contradictory worldview you say?<br /><br />You stress biology in the extreme. Are then those aspects of reality that are empirically verifiable the only reality that we can know and is valid?<br /><br />And by the by, I don't answer your questions because you have already established that you don't accept my answers or definitions. If, for the sake of discussion, I define Biblical morality, you are to allow me that definition so long as I am consistent in its use. To deny me the ability to define my terms is to deny my ability to communicate at all.<br /><br />I understand you assume you have these things figured out for yourself already and so try to cut me off at the pass, but you don't, and your hubris is both discourteous and immature. I willingly accept your definitions and by them try to understand what you are trying to communicate. This is the basis on which all communication is built.IratePotentatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02114958996659567326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-50407639426625229972013-11-10T17:13:46.227-05:002013-11-10T17:13:46.227-05:00So, Irate, you want to impose this notion of an af...So, Irate, you want to impose this notion of an afterlife. Then you need to argue for it. Simply saying that vast throngs of people throughout history have believed in an afterlife is simply not compelling. As I have pointed out, we can <i>imagine</i> an afterlife. Fine and dandy. But if that’s all you’ve got, then the jury must rest that it is merely imaginary. The jury needs evidence. The jury needs facts. The jury needs a solid case. Otherwise you have nothing to stand on. Meanwhile, I’ll go with the facts, even if you don’t like it.<br /><br />You wrote: “I'm more than willing to concede that it may not exist, as I live and move in the existential wasteland where all things are possible and no stone must be left unturned; do you have the steel to walk that wasteland with me?”<br /><br />I have no idea what you’re talking about. I don’t know where you have chosen to live and move, but I live on a place called earth, and it is no wasteland. Not yet anyhow. If the religionists have their way, however, it will become one. They are on a campaign informed by the code of death, and their goal is not to create values, but to destroy them. They all want to blow it up and go on to their afterlife. Belief in an afterlife always undermines any value one might place on life right here in planet Earth.<br /><br />A quick history lesson for you:<br /><br /><<<b>When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot “Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.” The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied “Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His” (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so countless number in that town were slain.</b>>> (<a href="http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/07/22/1209-albigensian-crusade-cathars-beziers/" rel="nofollow">Caesarius of Heisterbach on the Massacre at Béziers</a>)<br /><br />Or, as can rightly be summed up: Given the belief in a god, all things become permissible.<br /><br />I’ll stick with “Live long and prosper.” If you like sacrificing yourself and dying young so much, have at it. I will not stop you.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-43887018957416797902013-11-10T17:12:01.040-05:002013-11-10T17:12:01.040-05:00You wrote: “You have narrowly defined the scope of...You wrote: “You have narrowly defined the scope of your argument such that you can knock down the pins and prove your point.”<br /><br />I focus on the facts relevant to man’s nature as a biological organism. You complain that this is too narrow. That is most telling.<br /><br />If you want to show that man is not a biological organism, then by all means start there – that is what you would need to unseat in all this. Correct me if you think I’m wrong. <br /><br />You wrote: “But coming to the table having already decided that there is no possibility of any afterlife is disappointing.”<br /><br />So you’re disappointed that I do not take seriously some silly notion that you hope is true. That is not my problem. Nor is it indicative of any breach of logical norms on my part. My argument also does not attempt to draw a conclusion from a denial of Buddhist premises, a denial of Islamic premises, a denial of Blarkist premises. The moral code of life does not rest on denials – it rests on facts. This is clearly laid out. <br /><br />Perhaps the notion of deriving a moral code from facts pertaining to man’s nature is so alien to the thinking of those who take silly notions like an afterlife seriously, that they simply don’t understand what I’m doing. But again, that is not my problem.<br /><br />You wrote: “Given that some of the greatest philosophical and scientific minds in recorded history believed in an afterlife, and given that most people on the planet today believe in some sort of afterlife, the possibility must be considered seriously and objectively.”<br /><br />Now who’s trying to impose what on whom? That people throughout history have believed in a notion that is clearly arbitrary, imposes no obligation on me or anyone else to take seriously. We need values, and that is the case given our nature as biological organisms. So let’s get busy focusing on that. I am of the view that human life will be much better if we get rid of all this irrational superstition and focus on what is real. And you want to resist this. In doing so you tell me what you’re all about.<br /><br />You speak of objectivity. Do you even know what objectivity is? Tell me, Irate, does wishing make it so? If not, why not? Please explain in a manner that is wholly consistent with your worldview (I presume you are a Christian, though you do not identify yourself as one explicitly). Wouldn’t objectivity at least in part guide us in carefully and consistently distinguishing between what is real and what is imaginary? If objectivity as you understand it does not do this, it needs a fundamental overhaul.<br /><br />[continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.com