Split: Please could you prove that I'm wrong? Teleology, Philosophy derail

[Yellow]

Right. But the assumptions extrapolated from them are readily seen in the minds and attitudes of the people. The scientific illiterate can use it to justify their religious beliefs, like young earth creationists, but the same scientific illiterates can use it to justify their atheism.

Dakwins doesn't have a good grasp on philosophy, all he makes are extrapolated assumptions from research to justify his atheism. He has consistently shown that he lacks understanding of Christianity, though he makes some good points on Islam. His discussions with apologists, theologians and other religious authorities have shown that he is clueless when it comes to ontology. A more respectable biologist would be someone like Edward O. Wilson. The 'four horsemen' out of the UK are lightweights.

edit: welp. okay you don't have to answer me, seems like lazuli got here first x_x

You may not know this, because of his more recent fame as an outspoken atheist, but Richard Dawkins is also a biologist. He and his late nemisis Gould made a lot of contributions to the field and spurred on new avenues of study. His personal and religious opinions weren't relevant to my reference.

Extrapolations made from ignorant generalizations, or out of the "controversy", have no bearing on the actual field of study. Just like my feelings about modern classical music has no bearing upon whether Schnittke's work is traditionally classified as such by musical authorities.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Of course I know Richard Dakwins is a biologist lol. I just think he fails to understand religion, especially Christianity. His 'exegesis' of the old testament clearly shows his ignorance. I'm not trying to say his studies or the study of evolution is irrelevant in today's world- if you're thinking that, you've completely missed the point.

----

The point is, the study of evolution lends hand to atheism. But it shouldn't logically follow that evolution leads to atheism. But it does for many people.

 

[Yellow]

Of course I know Richard Dakwins is a biologist lol. I just think he fails to understand religion, especially Christianity. His 'exegesis' of the old testament clearly shows his ignorance. I'm not trying to say his studies or the study of evolution is irrelevant in today's world- if you're thinking that, you've completely missed the point.

See, that is my point: that the point has been thoroughly missed. Religion is not relevant here. Semantic arguments are not relevant here. Philosophies that have been invented to include uninformed assumptions about a scientific field are not relevant to said field of study. I don't understand why it even has to be said.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

... Religion is not relevant here...

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

 

[onesteptwostep]

ah, so begins the tl;dr phase xD

 

[Yellow]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

Nor are Appeals to Authority as arguments. Einstein was a brilliant scientist, but his religious opinions make no sense in this conversation.

 

[onesteptwostep]

It's not an appeal to authority. Have you read the page to understand the logic behind Einstein? Lazuli didn't say 'because Einstein said so,' he provides Einstein's thoughts.

 

[Yellow]

I understand your statement, but why else would Einstein in particular be quoted, and not his neighbor Bob, if not for the appeal? Anyway, I don't know if I'm simply failing to communicate, or what, but this is getting a little silly. It makse no sense (to me at least) to think that Einstein's personal or religious beliefs would belong here.

Edit: Either way, this train of thought is clearly a waste of my, your, and his time.

 

[onesteptwostep]

hmm..

well ok :\

 

[Hadoblado]

Einstein is the go-to appeal to authority, it's rather cliché. You should be very aware of the connotations that go with using his quotes to support your ideas, and work to make it clear that your idea stands on its own without Einstein having agreed with it. Posting his article as the body of your reply ain't that.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Please could you prove that I'm wrong?

I would say this distinction is Sophistry. I am not aware of any extrinsic absolute connotations of teleology. Such perspective give the illusion of an absolute morality, and then this gets confused with teleology. I’m addressing teleology in the sense of the development of an Aristotelian mean, and as stated by Aristotle, this function is subjective. This gives a clue how some intelligent beings can intuitively make ethical decisions where complete objective evidence is lacking, and this is in support of my view of Lamarckian evolution.

how would it be at odds with nihilism if there weren't absolutes? what is your point with any of this? aristotelian teleology doesn't assign absolute purpose to things and so doesn't posit absolute morality - i.e. what something is for, irrespective of who asks, which is the class of statements nihilism denies. it only speaks of things in terms of internal propensity - what something tends to do and how that tendency could be understood as a potential. not a kind of ideation that nihilism is interested in subverting - if anything it goes along well with the fluidity of nihilism to show that what appears to us like fixed objects is really more like processes/unfoldings. so why did you bring up nihilism? it would take a denial of perception itself to deny this teleology which merely acknowledges that there are entities. but as far as the theory goes, teleology explains nothing.

you have fun with your "view of Lamarckian evolution" why not throw in some "views on geocentrism" while you're at it?

 

[JimJambones]

But just because finding out how we came to be is more interesting doesn't mean that there could not be a purpose. Right? I mean logically speaking.. :P

The purpose is unanswerable in any objective way. Any attributions of purpose are presupposing intent. To what would we attribute intent? To a deity? To unthinking particles? Attributing purpose is something our brains do very well. Water has no purpose, it is just a property of H20, most people will say the purpose of water is to hydrate them.

It is incorrect to look at evolution as having a purpose. The notion that the goal of evolution is to pass on genes is misleading and only serves to help understand the process. Evolution occurs because genes mutate and survive. There need not be a purpose, but there is certainly a process.

 

[onesteptwostep]

If there's no purpose, and if there certainly is a process, then why do we place morality in high regard?

If morality is a processes as well, wouldn't it possible to envision a morality that exceeds the level of morality which we have today? Perhaps there's no objective morality, but we can often look to the past and see that morality back then is objectively backwards or false compared with the morality we have today. Taking that into account, wouldn't the people in the future see our morality today and laugh at it? Objective morality may not be outlined with our language and our thoughts now, but they certainly will be better forms of morality in the future. And that, to me, is what objective morality is. Sure, it's subjective, but to them, our morality is simply backwards. If the shaping of a more pure morality exists, then I think it would also be possible to propose that purpose exists.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Ah well technical nihilism started ages ago, sure, but I doubt it was cemented or well known in the minds of the everyday person until evolution came around. Without Darwinism and the rise of atheism, I don't think nihilism would have gained ground in the mind of the everyday like today. Atheism generally is a prerequisite for nihilism, after all.

No it isn't.
What is nihilism? It is a negation of one, multiple or all aspects of existence, including values, materiality, knowledge, purpose among others.

It cannot be denied that christian crusaders were nihilists, in how they threw away their comfort or life to assault the holy sites, the children's crusade or poor's crusade (sending beggars, sick and outcasts) is a prime example of religious nihilist idiocy. The artists of the medieval period didn't sign their works adhering to the rule of "ad maiorem dei gloriam" (meaning, for the greater glory of god), there are many examples of human beings either being convinced, readily believing or being forced to reject aspects of their existence in order to obey religious texts, leaders or societies at large. This too is nihilism.

Hmm no the problem I see with humanism is that there is no objective basis in which you follow your ethical code. It's by the use of traditional ontologies that we arrived to our current level of morality and ethics. If one forgoes that, I feel, in the future we're going to have difficulties in deciding what's good for ourselves.

Creating objective foundations on falsities or arbitrary decisions is a big lie. I'd rather seek for objective knowledge to base my actions on and rely on my personal ethics that I fully realise are only mine, that is, I won't ever accuse someone else of not doing exactly the same, because I have no basis to do it.
And finding a quick fix moral basis such as unprovable god or something else doesn't cut it for me. I'd rather live my life, knowing I believe in some incomplete theory that will someday be improved or rendered obsolete, than defend an oblivious generalisation.

I have even more respect for people who admit they believe in fantasies and choose to do it based on their personal aesthetics and freedom of choice.

Again, in the bigger scheme of things, we may have to sympathize with people like Nixon or the Japanese Imperial emperor if we were humanistic. If you take the humanist route, you're bound to turn Machiavellian. Morality becomes a powergame rather than morality for its own sake.

How? Why? Again, arrogance, explain why would it happen?
If anything, Machiavellian is imposing rules on a society, claiming them universal and then remaining above the hierarchy of common folk, just like the aristocracy and clergy used to and still do in a different way to a different extent. This is a power game, the hierarchy under the subterfuge of equality and totality of arbitrary rules.

edit: I don't see it going anywhere, I asked you to back what you say up previously and all you could do was say we have different world-views. I won't bother to reply to another set of baseless claims or ideas.

 

[Brontosaurie]

if by nihilism we mean meta-ethical nihilism, then i can see atheism being a prerequisite for nihilism. one cannot deny objective purpose and value and imperative while effectively holding a substantial belief in god. i might go as far as to say that atheism and nihilism are analytically identical.

but that's a completely different thing from claiming that atheism causes nihilism if by nihilism we mean cultural disease; lack of proper conduct and burgeoning decadence. that's why it's important that lapis lazuli clarifies some terms. apparently the teleology we're discussing is teleology proper, and yet it contradicts nihilism like only a particular objective teleology could. whatever nihilism means here - we've still yet to learn. i'd wager that lapis lazuli actually is trying to smuggle in a rebuttal of nihilism by equivocating it as outlined above, and that's why lapis lazuli graced past the latter of my two clarification queries. i wonder why go through all that trouble instead of just serving it straight up:

"this smart thing is called the same thing as this horrible thing! so it's horrible too. you see kids, smart isn't so nice as it may seem! be stupid and afraid, HEIL CHRISTLER"

oh wait that'd sound as whack as it is

 

[onesteptwostep]

@ blar

Well if you're using a super loose definition of nihilism then anyone can become a nihilist lol

The most common usage of the word 'nihilism' is that there is no purpose or meaning in life. Apparently the word was coined in the 19th century, meaning that it did not have as much prevalence as it did before then. It was after this that it gained ground in the minds of the people. And nihilism understood in this way means that atheism, generally, needs to be its prerequisite. But not always.

P.S. Yeah I know of the children's crusade. There was a bunch of really stupid things that happened in the crusades, I know. Another fun fact is that Francis of Assissi actually went down to Egypt (I think) and met the Sultan. Another one.. well the German king dying before even getting to the holy lands. Forget his name..

Creating objective foundations on falsities or arbitrary decisions is a big lie. I'd rather seek for objective knowledge to base my actions on and rely on my personal ethics that I fully realise are only mine, that is, I won't ever accuse someone else of not doing exactly the same, because I have no basis to do it.
And finding a quick fix moral basis such as unprovable god or something else doesn't cut it for me. I'd rather live my life, knowing I believe in some incomplete theory that will someday be improved or rendered obsolete, than defend an oblivious generalisation.

I have even more respect for people who admit they believe in fantasies and choose to do it based on their personal aesthetics and freedom of choice.

How? Why? Again, arrogance, explain why would it happen?
If anything, Machiavellian is imposing rules on a society, claiming them universal and then remaining above the hierarchy of common folk, just like the aristocracy and clergy used to and still do in a different way to a different extent. This is a power game, the hierarchy under the subterfuge of equality and totality of arbitrary rules.

edit: I don't see it going anywhere, I asked you to back what you say up previously and all you could do was say we have different world-views. I won't bother to reply to another set of baseless claims or ideas.

Well okay, one question. How did the cultural milieu come about for you to practice your current personal ethic?

Also as to your 2nd segment, separation of church and state lol

---

@bronto

lack of proper conduct and burgeoning decadence

what? no. you can still be an nihilist and be a good person. but the problem happens on a more macro level

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

@ blar

Well if you're using a super loose definition of nihilism then anyone can become a nihilist lol

It's not that my definition is super loose, it's that you didn't propose your definition and did not provide any other clarification of the nouns that you are so used to including in your dictionary.

The most common usage of the word 'nihilism' is that there is no purpose or meaning in life.

This is existential nihilism, I don't think it's most common to say nihilism when meaning existential nihilism. If you can't clarify what you are talking about then it's very easy to back out of what you have said, saying you meant something else.

Apparently the word was coined in the 19th century, meaning that it did not have as much prevalence as it did before then.

It doesn't follow that anything done prior to 19th century couldn't have been described by it, it doesn't matter when the term was created if it was discussed and visible before then.

Well okay, one question. How did the cultural milieu come about for you to practice your current personal ethic?

It is irrelevant. I see you are not trying to explain things, instead you use rhetoric to undermine my questions.

Also as to your 2nd segment, separation of church and state lol

It's not laughable, so far there hasn't been a single hierarchical system that didn't exploit its lower classes, it can be easily said that any objectification or generalisation of systems implemented so far is dangerous and will be harmful.

It's funny because while accusing relativism the one who employs semantic and ideological relativism is yourself now, you can easily back out of what is being said, because you didn't clarify or state anything yourself yet. I'm so done talking to you . Have a nice day.

 

[onesteptwostep]

eh

history doesn't need an explanation, it needs to be learned

 

[Brontosaurie]

@bronto


what? no. you can still be an nihilist and be a good person. but the problem happens on a more macro level

this is getting even more confused. you and lapis lazuli are a tag team in that, i've noticed. frankly i'm baffled by y'alls ability to create discourse situations that are immensely difficult to resolve using the raw material of very simple confusions only. mighty frustrating. i mean here we are, a word can mean two things. that pretty much means it should be two words. that's all i think...? and yet it becomes this big obstacle when you zoom in on irrelevant subtleties while actually not even having an explicit central point.

how did you get the impression that i meant to say that nihilist persons (existential or meta-ethical) are necessarily immoral? how did that question even surface? we were discussing nihilism as a meta-ethical view, versus nihilism as a description of a depraved cultural condition in which social contracts fail among citizens. i pointed out the need for agreement on such a distinction (several times), and you respond by telling me they're not the same thing. what is this?

 

[onesteptwostep]

just as a disclaimer, this is just me musing, so no need to take anything too seriously

are you saying that the macro level problem called nihilism somehow results from sound meta-ethical nihilism on a personal level?

yes

or from the personal existential malaise which may also be called nihilism and which corresponds more directly to the macro level problem nihilism, although it indeed doesn't necessarily make a person perform immoral actions?

yes

or are you just highlighting the distinction once again because you thought i was conflating them (which i wasn't) ?

yes. but yes if you were.

--again this is just me musing--​

if nihilism becomes a majority in a country somehow, then you might see problems. both apathy* and humanism that come from nihilism can bring about discord- in the societal, national context. if people have differing values which are not shared by others, and if this goes on for a long time, the country will pull itself apart, or at least stretch itself too much until something ruptures- and that could just happen from within the country or by another foreign party outside~. and if someone with the wrong values triumphs after the struggle, then poof, we backwards go as a species. we might question things like, 'is democracy the best way?' or like 'does national sovereignty matter?' and so on

and by pulling itself apart i mean in all aspects. like militarily and economically. too much focus on debate on one issue might lead to "misfile" of a more urgent issue as well. civil and domestic policy comes to mind (not that i'm saying we should not advance in those aspects)

*(or maybe the term absurdism works better here)
~ that's basically how the roman empire broke apart

/meta man i sound so republican right now lol

 

[Brontosaurie]

haha i deleted that part you're quoting... shouldn't have

i disagree with your hypothesis but i will use my permission to take it not too seriously.

 

[onesteptwostep]

haha ok

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Einstein is the go-to appeal to authority, it's rather cliché. You should be very aware of the connotations that go with using his quotes to support your ideas, and work to make it clear that your idea stands on its own without Einstein having agreed with it. Posting his article as the body of your reply ain't that.

I don’t need to quote Einstein to make a point about what Einstein was saying, so I will refer to Thomas S. Kuhn. He wrote that the received view of science thought to be a rational continuous development of empirical evidence is wrong. There are discontinuous momentums which can not be explained rationally, he called these “paradigm shifts.” Don’t even try to say that I’m being cliché, because Kuhn is the one to bring this phrase into our current use.

These paradigm shifts happen when the rational “puzzle solving” part of science becomes degenerate and there is a decline in explanatory “spin off,” or information that complements other areas of research besides the primary one under investigation. In other words, the advent of Nihilism due to the majority of scientific workers not really understanding science as the logic of discovery, but being excellent calculators (i.e. Platonist mathematicians).

Only when an Einstein or Lamarck comes along does the paradigm get adjusted or changed entirely such that it begins to grow again. It is this creative outlook on reality that the proper religious cultivation can have the greatest affect on, but there are some groups who work toward the deconstruction of religion in order to obscure what has been understood since Socrates about science.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I don’t need to quote Einstein to make a point about what Einstein was saying, so I will refer to Thomas S. Kuhn. He wrote that the received view of science thought to be a rational continuous development of empirical evidence is wrong..

well kuhn isn't even a philosopher of science, just an author of historic fiction gone psychotic. what he wrote doesn't matter, to anyone anywhere. i know he's famous, i know you expect the reference to gain you some traction. but it doesn't matter because he is incompetent and misinformed.

kuhn is simply an advocate for the most blatant, lazy, anti-intellectual relativism. he denies scientific progress - it follows that he must also deny technological progress and its capacity to ameliorate suffering. it's borderline evil defeatism, his total error is in plain sight and it is a shame to bring him up. but he's a good example of nihilism as pathology (nihilitis?)

now karl popper, that's a real philosopher of science

 

[Black Rose]

whether or not morality of society disintegrates due to nihilism has no bearing on if evolution is true or not. the consequences of any philosophy is always up to the individual and i will say that as long as ideological indoctrination has no foothold people will naturally follow their biology. They will do so and be no worse off because the only restraints people have is inside themselves. Anything imposed by society will meet the resistance of those internal mechanisms. Foxes have been bred to be meaner than normal and foxes have been bred to be nice like dog puppies. Some people have more internal restraints than others and reject indoctrination. The real consequences have nothing to do with philosophy but with technology. Technology is shaping the future we will all live in. Technology is directing the biological limitations each person has to operate in. Philosophy is just a set of mental tools embedded in biology. Any incentives by which actions are taken have been meet by the least common denominator but this does not mean exceptional people do not exist. The system we inhabit shall constrain those animal instincts even further on those portions of society which can not meet those basic needs.

"A hungry man is not a free man." - Adlai E. Stevenson

Society is not moral, individuals are moral but technology eliminates the incentives for basic animal dispositions. We are heading for a machine society.

"They're a cleaner better breed than we are." - Issac Asimov

https://youtu.be/5n2pEJiDuhE

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

whether or not morality of society disintegrates due to nihilism has no bearing on if evolution is true or not. the consequences of any philosophy is always up to the individual and i will say that as long as ideological indoctrination has no foothold people will naturally follow their biology. They will do so and be no worse off because the only restraints people have is inside themselves. Anything imposed by society will meet the resistance of those internal mechanisms. Foxes have been bred to be meaner than normal and foxes have been bred to be nice like dog puppies. Some people have more internal restraints than others and reject indoctrination. The real consequences have nothing to do with philosophy but with technology. Technology is shaping the future we will all live in. Technology is directing the biological limitations each person has to operate in. Philosophy is just a set of mental tools embedded in biology. Any incentives by which actions are taken have been meet by the least common denominator but this does not mean exceptional people do not exist. The system we inhabit shall constrain those animal instincts even further on those portions of society which can not meet those basic needs.

"A hungry man is not a free man." - Adlai E. Stevenson

Society is not moral, individuals are moral but technology eliminates the incentives for basic animal dispositions. We are heading for a machine society.

"They're a cleaner better breed than we are." - Issac Asimov

The Zombie resurrection. Again.

 

[Black Rose]

The Zombie resurrection. Again.

conscious individuals are so hard to find these days

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

conscious individuals are so hard to find these days

At last, we agree on something.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

well kuhn isn't even a philosopher of science, just an author of historic fiction gone psychotic. what he wrote doesn't matter, to anyone anywhere. i know he's famous, i know you expect the reference to gain you some traction. but it doesn't matter because he is incompetent and misinformed.

kuhn is simply an advocate for the most blatant, lazy, anti-intellectual relativism. he denies scientific progress - it follows that he must also deny technological progress and its capacity to ameliorate suffering. it's borderline evil defeatism, his total error is in plain sight and it is a shame to bring him up. but he's a good example of nihilism as pathology (nihilitis?)

now karl popper, that's a real philosopher of science

Coming from someone who in the same thread says this:

“i disagree with your hypothesis but i will use my permission to take it not too seriously.”

 

[Brontosaurie]

Coming from someone who in the same thread says this:

“i disagree with your hypothesis but i will use my permission to take it not too seriously.”

yes.

?

onesteptwostep's post was interesting but i focus on finding out what it is we're discussing and proving you wrong about it, which is why i allow myself not to encourage further derails by replying more thoroughly to something interesting but ultimately tangential. i don't know why you think this defends kuhn from my criticism. and kuhn is a rather weak defense of whatever you're saying in the first place.

is one a hypocrite if one, in the same thread 1. does not greet a tangential exposition with full courtesy, and 2. criticizes kuhn? that's not intuitively obvious, it needs some explanation. i don't think you'll find a feasible one cause it's just hogwash.

sorry, your arguments are poor. i don't even know if there are any.

 

[onesteptwostep]

^ but again, perspectives will change as you get older

;]

 

[Brontosaurie]

^ but again, perspectives will change as you get older

;]

that's dirty

u older?

 

[onesteptwostep]

im eternal baby

 

[Jennywocky]

It's a waste of time talking to anti-realist.

So far lapis has either been condescendingly assuming towards others or passive aggressive.
Anti-realists can indulge in their hermetic, gnostic references and find comfort in branding anyone who can't agree as unconscious or incapable of talking to them.

I'm not sure how many people on this forum are sane, but I can tell when there's no point distinguishing between insanity and severe cases of idealism.

Maybe it's like light -- it can behave like particles and waves simultaneously.

*muses*

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

As if Thomas Kuhn needs defending by me, or anyone for that matter. His work is considered classic these days.

So break out your weak ad hominem’s, I’ve cut my teeth years ago on them and my skin is too ticklish for your gums. Let the hallucinating begin.

No one addressed Lamarckian evolution, and the “experts” have had plenty of time to Google up on it.

 

[Black Rose]

No one addressed Lamarckian evolution, and the “experts” have had plenty of time to Google up on it.

is there a reason we need to?
i think someone said we don't know what the discussion is about?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Maybe it's like light -- it can behave like particles and waves simultaneously.

*muses*

We cannot talk about light unless we mention the nature of the scientists studying said light, who raised up in an increasingly atheist nihilist society, weren't able to discern the purpose of this duality.
There are very simple optical illusions that make even most careful empirical studies note contradictory results, this is proof that only a true of heart, pure of cultural zeitgeist of nonsense can see the glorious beginnings of life and light, which are in fact one.

Zeno rightly said, that no one can move, since to make a step, one has to take half of said step and to achieve that a quater, since no one can move, every force is unstoppable since we somehow do move. This is proof that every perspective is relative and we need to come a long way to say something with certainty.

Even then, certainty is an assumption of senses, an oblivious agreement that what we observe, this despicable construct called by many "reality", is something more than a guesstimation of potential stimuli and imagination that we cannot escape.

 

[Jennywocky]

Zeno rightly said, that no one can move, since to make a step, one has to take half of said step and to achieve that a quater, since no one can move, every force is unstoppable since we somehow do move. This is proof that every perspective is relative and we need to come a long way to say something with certainty.

Zeno seems to have played loose and fast with arbitrary boundaries of actions, to create his own logical illusions. (Just like the guy on foot WILL beat the turtle in a race IRL, even if the turtle is moving steadily onward.)

 

[Brontosaurie]

As if Thomas Kuhn needs defending by me, or anyone for that matter. His work is considered classic these days.

So break out your weak ad hominem’s, I’ve cut my teeth years ago on them and my skin is too ticklish for your gums. Let the hallucinating begin.

No one addressed Lamarckian evolution, and the “experts” have had plenty of time to Google up on it.

you didn't address shit yourself punk, and no one needs to fucking "address" lamarckian evolution. descartes, heidegger and sartre are also considered classic. as is every religious belief. doesn't make them any less bullshit. doesn't save kuhn from his own stupidity. it is nothing but stupidity to claim that the science that gave us better health, longer lives, shorter travels, better communications, more commodities, more opportunities and more power "doesn't actually make progress". and on top of this, you are calling me a post modernist. it's mind blowingly dumb.

what fucking ""experts""? you're the one referring to authority instead of producing arguments. you're the one trying to make your word law without having to prove it. you're the fancy ass one here.

can you disappear now, this is painful

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

you didn't address shit yourself punk, and no one needs to fucking "address" lamarckian evolution. descartes, heidegger and sartre are also considered classic. as is every religious belief. doesn't make them any less bullshit. doesn't save kuhn from his own stupidity. it is nothing but stupidity to claim that the science that gave us better health, longer lives, shorter travels, better communications, more commodities, more opportunities and more power "doesn't actually make progress". and on top of this, you are calling me a post modernist. it's mind blowingly dumb.

what fucking ""experts""? you're the one referring to authority instead of producing arguments. you're the one trying to make your word law without having to prove it. you're the fancy ass one here.

can you disappear now, this is painful

You wear the Emperor’s New Clothing well. Why so serious?

 

[Brontosaurie]

You wear the Emperor’s New Clothing well. Why so serious?

because i actually care about the topics we are discussing, which makes me rather impatient with behavior such as yours.

 

[Brontosaurie]

"The phrase "emperor's new clothes" has become an idiom about logical fallacies.[27] The story may be explained by pluralistic ignorance.[28] The story is about a situation where "no one believes, but everyone believes that everyone else believes. Or alternatively, everyone is ignorant to whether the Emperor has clothes on or not, but believes that everyone else is not ignorant."[29]"

and also how in the fuck does this apply to me? explain immediately or i'll describe exactly what combination of genitalia and cooking techniques best expresses your miserable obnoxious character. it's the best threat i got. you really are a deeply unlikeable, shit person. understanding this will benefit you. this is likely the only time in your life that anyone will bother with actually caring about your well being, so cherish it. use it. realize how dumb you are, and work to improve yourself. the minimum effort is to shut the fuck up and get the fuck out.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

because i actually care about the topics we are discussing, which makes me rather impatient with behavior such as yours.

Please, keep it civil, if you want to get some answers from lapis then there's no need to be so violent. If I see any other attack from anyone I will be closing this thread.

No need to curse people over what they say/believe/whatever.
This also extends to Lapis, you can stop with this sarcasm already, it doesn't help.

 

[Black Rose]

I don’t need to quote Einstein to make a point about what Einstein was saying, so I will refer to Thomas S. Kuhn. He wrote that the received view of science thought to be a rational continuous development of empirical evidence is wrong. There are discontinuous momentums which can not be explained rationally, he called these “paradigm shifts.” Don’t even try to say that I’m being cliché, because Kuhn is the one to bring this phrase into our current use.

These paradigm shifts happen when the rational “puzzle solving” part of science becomes degenerate and there is a decline in explanatory “spin off,” or information that complements other areas of research besides the primary one under investigation. In other words, the advent of Nihilism due to the majority of scientific workers not really understanding science as the logic of discovery, but being excellent calculators (i.e. Platonist mathematicians).

Only when an Einstein or Lamarck comes along does the paradigm get adjusted or changed entirely such that it begins to grow again. It is this creative outlook on reality that the proper religious cultivation can have the greatest affect on, but there are some groups who work toward the deconstruction of religion in order to obscure what has been understood since Socrates about science.

to me it seems you yourself are against paradigm shifts or at least what you call them you refer to them as "another zombie movement" for if it is possible to have knowledge yet that knowledge it is false or at least not axiomatic this doesn't mean you can ascribe to it explanatory powers. A shift only means that you have found a way to explain things in such a way that the explanation need no simpler terms to contain it fully for what it is. Containing the full picture yet no longer needing preliminary data is a pseudo explanation. Calling upon discoveries that can't yet be understood "another zombie movement" would guarantee that what you try to explain them the resistance is because you say previous discoveries don't matter instead of including them as in a fuller picture. Because religion is a zombie movement you take that as a higher discovery and promote it as such. In doing so you say science is for zombies so instead of promoting a paradigm shift you you make people think of it as what you yourself are promoting which is the opposite of science which is religion which is "another zombie movement" = paradigm shift.

You do see why calling science a zombie movement is offensive in that case right? Because that is what you are doing using the term religion which denies all previous discoveries. Just because real shifts do happens does not mean you can discount previous discoveries. What happens is a reduction of unnecessary descriptions of what is being observed leading to a simplex explanation including all discoveries. From there new implications can be made. What you are focused on are simply discrediting old descriptions not making new implications so you create strawmen of past zombie movements(religion) which makes you look like you are attacking real science. You do not even understand what a paradigm shift is because you describe it as religion. Try deriving some new implications instead, teleology comes from human self understanding, what happens when people start understanding themselves?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Please, keep it civil, if you want to get some answers from lapis then there's no need to be so violent. If I see any other attack from anyone I will be closing this thread.

No need to curse people over what they say/believe/whatever.
This also extends to Lapis, you can stop with this sarcasm already, it doesn't help.

all he needs to do is to "not take so seriously" as per his own adage.

no problem exists here.

let's lynch him into oblivion y'all "it isn't serious"

 

[Seteleechete]

I have to disagree that atheism is a requirement for nihilism. Making the assumption that God exists one could still believe in the lack of meaning in existence. God made me for reason x, therefore x is supposedly my purpose, then what? Doing x just because God decided that it's supposed to be my purpose is still meaningless.

Teleology may or may not be compatible with nihilism depending on how you see it. Does the fork have a purpose? Yes. However teleogy also asks, what is the purpose of my life? Live and die, get offspring is an answer for both teleogy and nihilism. However what is unclear to me is does teleogy also ask, what is the purpose of life beyond that? The problem with this question is that in order for it to work with Teleology one has to make the assumption that there is a purpose beyond basic life functions. The question cannot be answered on a teleological basis without a religious belief.

Moving onto evolution the same problem applies without the assumption that there is a guiding force(can be aliens/religious ect.) teleology isn't a compatible explanation. Now one can argue that evolution is the guiding force for Teleology but then using the concept to help explain evolution would be contradictory(not to mention utterly pointless).

 

[onesteptwostep]

But what God in what Religion allows for nihilism?

You make sense in axiomatic abstracts, but you have to be grounded in concretes in order to impact reality and have appeal to sense; or it's just sophistry that's in the abstracts' of one's mind.

Moving onto evolution the same problem applies without the assumption that there is a guiding force(can be aliens/religious ect.) teleology isn't a compatible explanation. Now one can argue that evolution is the guiding force for Teleology but then using the concept to help explain evolution would be contradictory(not to mention utterly pointless).

This I agree wholeheartedly. It's just that too much people do not understand the functions of a religion, or simply do not understand the religion itself. Others use religion to cement their misunderstandings. or bigotry if you want to be blunt

 

[Seteleechete]

But what God in what Religion allows for nihilism?

You make sense in axiomatic abstracts, but you have to be grounded in concretes in order to impact reality and have appeal to sense; or it's just sophistry that's in the abstracts' of one's mind.

No I don't, I'll make a new God up right now with a religion based on brutal honesty, there you have an example. Please meet my arguments if you can instead of sidestepping like this.

 

[onesteptwostep]

eh, you'd be making an insutition for a philosophy or an ethic, that isn't exactly what a religion is in the fullest of sense. a religion is a way of life, an explanation of the cosmic system of the world; a worldview

 

[Seteleechete]

eh, you'd be making an insutition for a philosophy or an ethic, that isn't exactly what a religion is in the fullest of sense. a religion is a way of life, an explanation of the cosmic system of the world; a worldview

What you are describing is a dogma, my religions dogma is that you should be brutaly honest and use a rational/scientific world view.

Furthermore a religion does not have to accept me for me to believe in God I can believe in his existence thus I am not an atheist but still don't adhere/believe in the dogma God preaches.

However I just realized your argument has some merit as nihilism is not compatible with the existence of some religions Gods(any whose very existence forbids a nihilist from believing in nihilism.) The problem with this of course is that if you believe in nihilism no such God can exist as then it would be impossible for you to believe in nihilism. So a nihilist could be an antagonist/believer in any entity that doesn't have this power and an atheist towards any that does (as belief in nihilism would be a direct contradiction to those entities existence.)