Sunday, June 27, 2010
1. Faith: I recently read an article by Philosopher David S. Brown called Reasoning Down the Rabbit-Hole. In it he presents one of his pet peeves with New Atheists. He claims that atheists define Faith arbitrarily as "a beilief without evidence". Now I have generally eard that definition from atheists (not to mention my handy-dandy Webster's dictionary), but Dr. Brown seems to believe that the defintion of Faith should be that of Medieval philosophers. I am no expert on Medieval philosophy/theology, but I am aware of the arguments that were crafted to prove a deity which had to be Christian.
However, without even delving into the Medieval period, I have found a problem with Dr. Brown's argument. He first claims that one should not make artbitrary definitons to words. He secondly claims that New Atheists redefine Faith in order to defeat theologians. Finally, He asserts that Medieval philosophers did not use Faith in that fashion. There is a twist of hand that he uses in his argument so obvious, it sickens my philosophical heart. He is the one using redefintion of terms to win an argument instead of searching for the truth of the situation. He arbitrarily chose the Medieval meaning of Faith, and that is exactly what he warned in his essay not to do. This is what the enemy of philosophers, the Sophists, did.
Now to be more sympathetic, I will evaluate all his claims instead of just looking at that error he made.First, he claims New Atheists, especially Richard Dawkins, are redefining the word Faith to mean "a belief without evidence". Now, I understand why the faithful may feel they have evidence in all the feelings and God-sightings, but I am skeptical of these claims and take them as delusional thinking. I could give many examples of how believers I have work with have conditioned themselves to act and think as if they had seen God, but that is not necessary to prove my first point. As a rising philosopher, I have reviewed the common evidence used by common believers (as opposed to sophicated theologians) for their deity, and I have concluded that these believers do not have evidence that is conclusive to their beliefs. Now I may be wrong, but I even have plenty of belivers who share the sentiment that their is "lack of evidence" component to Faith.
Also, I have Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary which states that Faith is loyalty to a person or duty, a trust or belief in one's God, or a firm belief in which there is no proof. Now, Faith is a word that believers wave around a lot, using it with very complex nuances. They always want more of it and continually humble themselves as if one could never have enough of it. They use the three defintion interchangably.
In order for a claim aboiut the universe to be justified, there must be evidence that logically supports the claim. In order for a belief in a claim to be justfied, the claim must be considered in a logical and systematic way. These two claims I just made are understood to be true and absolutely essential to good science and philosophy. From the point of view that religious claims are unjustified because of the lack of evidence, the last two defintions logically infer religious Faith in those claims to be unjustified. To prove that there is no evidence for all religious claims would be impossible, but I will generalize for the sake of time and space.
Because the dictionary supports the definition Richard Dawkins uses as lexicon definition and the fact that religions calim things which they have no proof, the definition Richard Dawkins uses is not arbitrary but accurate. Because Dr. Brown asserts that Medieval philosophers used a different defintion has no bearing on the modern lexiconial usage of the word, it would be arbitrary and, by his own reasoning, wrong to use a defintion from a specific time period.
Monday, June 21, 2010
hello eric, how goes thee
i hope you have found things to entertain your brain during the summer
LIke a winter breeze easily through to the marrow
i have posted new videos
one is about football just for u
erg.. i wish to separate myself from football
what is it about tho
its a song
off of what other song
not a spoof on a song but on bfootball fans
just look at some of the top 4 videos on my wall or something and comment or something
you got it
you know i moved
i live in chicago
how many chicas in chicago?
and our conversations (or rather, your conversations) have really interested me in philosophy, especially the classical philosophers
how many? 54 percent
really, nice to hear.
im sorry if they are my conversation
i don't think i could my words would have helped what you were saying
so who u interested in
"i could my words"
i am astonished at his scientific approach
it astounds me when i imagine the time and age
to think of matter
if u like aristotle, then u should talk to my brother in emory
he goes too far with aristotle in my opinion
the greeks were awesome i must say
but there are things aristotle made mistakes with
how does he go too far?
and what mistakes?
My major problem is that aristotle is that he does allow for randomness or chaos
He believes everything has order and that the reason why things do the things they do is because of a telos
telos is roughly a goal
and through this argument he postulates a primeover
Primemover, a Deity for cause and effect
i remember you telling me about telos
so.. is it that you disagree in there being a natural goal within everything?
Basically, Aristotle could not understand how something could not be intented to happen or have a prime intention
would he believe there is a telos in a boulder
Well i dont disagree that it is possible, but im saying his philosophy begs the question
He believed the planets moved around the earth out of love for the primemover
The rock falls because it wants to fall
that is its nature and nature is desire for aristotle
Now he doesnt mean desire as in processes in the brain per se, but in a conceptual way of viewing how everything could be explained
By saying that things happen because of X Y Z does not prove that X Y or Z is real or relavent
or that a causal relationship exist
hmm, i don't quite understand the xyz part
Basically Aristotle intended to make the world make sense in his own terms
if things happen, isn't it real?
now that makes sense
XYZ are just place holders for anything
and your brother follows aristotle in making the world just too neat?
with his beliefs?
Yeah, he hasaristotle weakness for design
my brother is a deist for aa designer
things have to be made, they cant be unintentional without foresight
Telos can be understood as having foresight
idk if intention is too much of a human concept
THeintention has many different meanings in philosophy
Intentionality is for the philosophy of language a way to explain why I mean what I do with my words
Basically intention in that sense connects the sentence to the real world
Intention for Foucault meant it in a darwinian sense
Intention that were not subjective
then i think aristotle had a quite clear grasp of telos considering his time and scenario
it astounds me how creativity and logic can exist together
clear grasp of something you yourself defined, is it possible?
you're right, my judgements right now are without the readings of aristotle
so its all my intention
DO we know what make
hehe, i think it would be interesting to question our own ideas to the point of asking do we understand ourselves
do we do we understand the language our brain speaks
that i can answer.. no
i do not understand myself
i actually felt lost this year because of the numerous elements of my life that affect me uncontrollably
i tbelieve a lot of people do not understand their thoughts, they speak the language but they dont understand it
and i know they are there, yet i have yet to analyze and discover for myself
i do feel like you could lose your life trying to understand yourself tho
i know there are things I am sensing because they are clear and distinct
but that does not mean it isn't worth searching
THings i am thinking
chemicals! spewing from your brain
DO u sense thoughts like you feel tables?
Are u seperate from your thoughts or part of them
if anything, the thoughts are more real than tables, because i hav ethe idea of what a table feels like
i think i am a byproduct
and if part of them, why claim them as your own
because i hav ea part in them
i think they are inseperable
inseperable, have u ever tried
i have not
to break away
to live without thoughts is to not live
or so u say
a plant lives
yes, but it doesn't have thoughts
or does it...
cells comunicate to each other
what are thoughts but a system of processes that inform each other
anything organized in a stregic power relationship
to telos of natural organization
i think your thoughts are in control until you realize the presence and conditoin of those thoughts, at which point then there is free will in terms of that though
which goes back to what we were saying about the thoughts you might not realize are there
but worth searching
If u have know free will, then who is not free?
everyone is free
but if u were notr free, then would u exist?
because everyone has SOME realization of themself, no?
i don't think so
if my thoughts were not free, i would have no will over them, and i would be only my thoughs
but i suppose my thoughts would be free from myself!
They could simply recognize a body of flesh and bones but it is actually their mother's body
to think yet never have a thought of oneself the christian dream
i am god
the buddhist dream in a more accurate portrayal
he is me
Creating a sims game and
eric.. there is a god
just do, as he says
How can i not, if he is the one thinking in my place
I met some pentacostals of the predestination branch
Who thinks but the one who is in control
true, thank god for humanist religion!
but the christian adopted humanism too but dont realize it
ignorance replaces true progress
i think religion was a very practical evolutionary tool that allowed for more moral and logical approaches, but its time has past
no one knows why we care about others anymore
because we care about ourselves, right?
If u didnt would u brush your teeth
if you watch a man being killed, don't you feel as if you're are being attacked?
Well, if i felt that, i might run away
if i didn't what
HMM good point
because the person who feels attack runs
so we arent tricked into thinking we are another person, we keep our individuality (of some sorts)
is it selfish or a communal response?
no not tricked
we think things, we make decisions, we have purposes to our actions (sometimes)
we have emotions and sensations
to save a person from danger is part of choosing what to do
we dont need a natural tendency to say do this or that
you want to say we are born good people or something
no no, i believe we are born noble savages
purely a byproduct of environment
purely environment or some genetics
purely in the sense of an initial genetic makeup, and the rest
the rest environment, where your genetic makeup can be changed to your environment
somethinThe brain has a blueprint on how to make and use its brain (that is primary knowledge)
The secondary is first experience
the color red must be experienced to be known
therefore it is secondary
do you think the blueprint can change though based on secondary experience?
the blueprint explains how to modify the structure (or use the process avaible to make a learn thing
the language is a bit out of there, for no one talks about the brains blueprint in genetics like this except in the field of study
I will concede that the environment develops our moral responses
is your major in college decided eric?
there is no moral fabric in our genetics?
what about the natural response of animals to protect their own species
But I dont believe learn ways our at all moral or justified just because of our environment
if a rat warns another rat of a cat, is it moral?
Does it matter?
If the rat lives or dies
Or if the cat is eaten by the the rat
because of the twists of fate and the dog eat dog world
ok, but i'm talking about if a rat consciencesly, or sub, decides to warn other rats, is it moral?
are we to pacify existence to rid all suffering all struggle
why is that moral, because we dislike it, because we desire outcomes
moral being the protection of others like yourself?
is not morality rigged, because it has the right to both say what is good and bad and say itself is good
So all morality is tribal
U are black, i dont look after u
Now i understand u, u are like me, join my tribe, be like white man
See my factories, work there
See my plantations work there
these are what those who have no past fortunes do in my tribe
eric, though i have enjoyed this talk, i feel we are becoming separated in ideas
the system is beloved, we dare not change it
i hope to come across you someday
oh we dare
our discontent dares
A system rigged to have unemployed people
To have unnecessary jobs and industries
to always put a bar in which one gets help
whatever, i am mostly trying to disagree with whatever u say
see ya my friend
hahaha point taken dipshit
just trying to spread the difficult material i have been reading in philosophy and social criticism
its greeted warmly, as a thought to be considered, and you a friend who's intentions are as moral and human as i can point to
good luck dude
and remember, i took part in your dance at prom
just like you expected people to lo