Author
|
Topic: "Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism (Read 3195 times) |
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
  
|
 |
Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #15 on: 2003-10-13 17:04:47 » |
 |
[Mermaid]
a suggestion: after everyone is done having their say, i think there has to be a group consensus...and a response to dinesh d'souza's article should be sent to opinionjournal.com...this would be a great opportunity to make cov visible...circulating cov stamped articles(opinion of cov as a group with the writing credit to the authors who put together the articles)/opinion pieces on the net and to other publications..usually as a response to nonsensical and malicious rants (not to mention illogical) is a good start
if we can make this the topic of tuesday's chat...wednesday should be a reasonable finish date to put together the cov position on d'souza's rant and the brights...
i propose this for a virian project. would anyone like to 'sponser'(i dont know what this means...if anyone does...do explain) it?
[rhinoceros]
Good idea. But Tuesday is... when? Tomorrow? I think IRC chats tend to become brainstorming sessions, so it might be better if we already had a couple of drafts, chatted about them, and finalizing them afterwards.
Anyone quick enough to write a good one, preferably in language for the masses?
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: "Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #16 on: 2003-10-13 17:04:03 » |
|
[Blunderov1]
I do not assert anything about the nature of existence except that it
exists. In order to attempt to falsify this statement, I, or something =
else,
would have to exist in order to do so. Therefore it cannot be falsified.
This point is fundamental to my particular 'method' of refutating 'god': =
I
have never met a theist who did not claim that god was the 'creator' but
this is not supportable. It is not possible that anything in existence =
has
not always existed, because it is not possible to obtain something from
nothing without tampering with the meaning of 'nothing'. Therefore there =
can
have been no creator - everything that exists must always (in some form =
or
another) have existed.*=20
Of course theists often claim this characteristic of 'always having =
existed'
as being unique to their god - but it begs the question. God would have =
had
to create the universe/s from something that already existed i.e. =
itself.
Therefore EVERYTHING must be god - which is the Pantheist position.
'Pantheism is the acceptable face of atheism' (Schopenhauer)
Best Regards
* I recently found out that an old Greek by the name of Parmenides also
thought this.
On Behalf Of Ant
Sent: 13 October 2003 2139
Not with complete certainty...
There is existence... but what exists? where? Cogito ergo sum, but where =
is
the I that is thinking? In this fleshy body? In a jewel? [a la Greg =
Egan] do
I have separate existence from everyone else? does everyone else have =
the
same perceptions of existence.
On Monday, October 13, 2003, at 08:15 PM, Blunderov wrote:
Erik Aronesty
Sent: 13 October 2003 1940
Everyone has a belief system of some sort - it is the basis of all
knowledge. It is not possible to "know" something in the sense of
absolute and unchangable fact. You can, however choose to believe in
things that have been verified by either your own senses or by others
or
by some induction therof.
[Blunderov]=20
Can I not state with complete certainty that 'there is existence'? Is it
possible to falsify this statement?
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
attached: winmail.dat
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.43
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #17 on: 2003-10-13 18:26:53 » |
|
Quote from: rhinoceros on 2003-10-13 17:04:47
Good idea. But Tuesday is... when? Tomorrow? I think IRC chats tend to become brainstorming sessions, so it might be better if we already had a couple of drafts, chatted about them, and finalizing them afterwards.
Anyone quick enough to write a good one, preferably in language for the masses?
|
[Mermaid]Its a tentative deadline..if there is enough meat for a better presentation, we can always extend the deadline...
i can write a summary of the cov position...any other volunteers?
|
|
|
|
|
metahuman
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 212
Reputation: 3.63
Rate metahuman
|
|
Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #18 on: 2003-10-13 19:11:21 » |
|
[Keith Henson] I don't self-identify as a "bright" but I can see their point in trying to get away from derogatory labels the way other groups have done. My interest in memetics and evolutionary psychology (try sex drugs cults in Google) has led me to a profound appreciation of religions and their functions. Alas, for me the ability to appreciate a tree seems to preclude being one.
[metahuman] As a marketer, I feel it is especially important to "cover all the bases", which The Brights have not done, and to appropriately engineer the introduction of the Brights movement to gain social acceptance. However, skeptics and haters of the Brights movement are actually working toward the social acceptance of the Brights. Richard Dawkins in his foreword to Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine points out, referring to the canonization of a new word by the Oxford English Dictionary, "The aspirant word must be commonly used without needing to be defined and withouts its coinage being attributed whenever it is used."
With that in mind, Mr. D'Souza's editorial can be seen as an attempt to define "Brights" with a theistic definition instead of what the term actually means. This is seen by the definition of "atheism" in the American-Heritage Dictionary (Bartleby.com, dictionary.com). As such, skeptics and haters are working on both sides of the fence.
The concept of being a Bright is not a radically new idea, and neither is using the term "bright" to describe a Way of thought as pointed out by a responder to the article at Opinion Journal. Homosexuals recently lifted the term "gay" and redefined it to suit their purposes. Originally, they self-identified as "fags", which also means something more pleasant.
I take issue with redefinition of a commonly-used word. The English language is already screwed up as it is with "Semitic" meaning various peoples and "anti-Semitic" referring to only hate of one among other political correctness garbage. When the term "meme" was introduced, it had no previous meaning. It developed as an analogy to "gene." This is an acceptable form of introducing a new word. The many theists I have spoken to and described to them memetics and the meaning of "meme" have not objected to the word or perceived memetics as an opposing religion. Brights was perceived negatively despite the happiness connotation I don't like about the word "bright."
The common folk will see Brights as atheists who claim they are smarter than everyone else. If this were true, even I would take a stronger stand against Brightism. Since the general public also feels every atheist is representative of atheism, it is more than likely that we'll be seeing more opinions like that of Mr. D'Souza that "dis" 30 million people because of that perception. This is what I feel that atheists must get away from: the idea that we are not individuals, that atheists are immoral, and are a cult of Satanists. Generalizations are inherently inaccurate as they make an assumption of "all". I've heard atheists generalize atheism and atheists and what they "believe". This is wrong and should be corrected whenever confronted.
A member of another forum put it bluntly, "[Brights] don't seem to have actually brought anything new to the table. It seems they just want to create an all-encompassing word that describes atheists." I perceive this quote to be quite accurate while it may err in some miniscule form or another. Besides rewriting the dictionaries, what is it that Brights can do to benefit this "naturalistic worldview"? What makes them different from us, Virians and MetaVirians alike? Whatever it is, it's more destructive than constructive in the long-run.
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re: virus: Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #19 on: 2003-10-13 19:20:33 » |
|
I NO more identify with the brights, a strictly Daniel Dennett memeplex, than I would identify with a possibly future
club formed by Stuart Kauffman (maybe the "Tiny Attractors").
They are both brilliant scientist and I will steal only what my "cult of one" needs from each.
In the mean-time, I remain a staunch "David Luciferian", thank you very fucking much!!!
Walter
David Lucifer wrote:
> [Keith] I don't self-identify as a "bright" but I can see their point in trying to
> get away from derogatory labels the way other groups have done.
>
> [Lucifer] Just out of curiosity, what are the reasons that the brights here do not self-identify with the brights?
>
> ----
> This message was posted by David Lucifer to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29508>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed or neutered."
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re: virus: Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #20 on: 2003-10-13 19:35:21 » |
|
Jake's lucidity is ONE of the MANY reasons this old reason rider still plants his fat
ass in a CoV pew every day.
Walter
Jake Sapiens wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I also think in light of my understanding and acceptance of memetics, that
> the cognitive stickiness of supernatural mythology means to me that a
> certain amount of social adherence to religion will follow as naturally as
> global warming follows from surplus greenhouse gas emissions. In other
> words, I don't really ever start off from the assumption that theists
> believe as they do due to some deficit of mental activity. I think many
> openly self-identified atheists will often implicitly assume this, and some
> perhaps even explicitly. For this reason, I frequently refrain from
> publicly "joining forces" with these kinds of atheists.
>
> -Jake
>
> >
> > ----
> > This message was posted by David Lucifer to the Virus 2003 board on
> Church of Virus BBS.
> >
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=295
> 08>
> > ---
> > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
> --- Jake Sapiens
> --- every1hz@earthlink.net
> --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed
or neutered."
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
metahuman
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 212
Reputation: 3.63
Rate metahuman
|
|
Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #21 on: 2003-10-13 20:34:57 » |
|
Walter, I read that David self-identifies as a Bright. If you self-identify as a "David Luciferian", does that mean you also identify as a Bright through the CoV?
|
|
|
|
|
opsima
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 40
Reputation: 5.54
Rate opsima
Don't worry, the worst is yet to come!
|
|
RE: virus: Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #22 on: 2003-10-13 21:09:47 » |
|
So, *technically*, the definition of "a Bright" is simply someone with a
naturalistic worldview. When many people here are claiming that they don't
support the Brights, I suppose this is to mean that you simply dislike using
the condescending moniker.
I don't dissapprove of the notion of fostering public acceptance for an
umbrella term like this, and while the term "Bright" has many unwanted
implications (from a public acceptance standpoint), the confrontational term
leads to public awareness of it.
Organizing athiests is like herding cats. Everyone is going their own way,
using their own system of philosophy, and attitude towards other religions.
And this varies from feelings of superiority, to bitterness and hostility,
to disregard, to acceptance. Some see placid spirituality as being just as
bad as militant evangelical fundamentalism.
Generally (that I've seen) athiests are very passionate about the exact
attitudes they have.
So, in my opinion, an umbrella term is needed for public acceptance and
recognition, yet, for it to serve as an appropriate umbrella term, there
needs to be an agreement among its constituents which is unlikely to come
easily.
I'd like to point out that while we may not all like the term "Brights", we
all almost certainly classify as Brights under Dawkins and Dennett's
definition. The term "Reasonables" is a good one, but I don't really have
complete confidence that every athiest is reasonable.
So this raises a few questions...
for one, would the best way to encourage acceptance of athiesm, naturalistic
worldviews, and the virtues of the CoV be to support the Brights, or to try
to not identify with them?
And also- do other religious organizations have these problems with the
attitudes of their members regarding other religions? Of course there is
variance over in the broad sense- but small churches and such things tend to
stick together pretty well (an assertion from my limited experience). Do we
need to hold bake sales? What should we do to strengthen the bonds in our
community? And as that is done here, perhaps it will gain momentum outside
the CoV...
We'll see :]
Take care, all
-Calvin
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
metahuman
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 212
Reputation: 3.63
Rate metahuman
|
|
Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #23 on: 2003-10-13 22:11:33 » |
|
[opsima] Would the best way to encourage acceptance of athiesm, naturalistic worldviews, and the virtues of the CoV be to support the Brights, or to try to not identify with them?
[metahuman] "God forbid we create another Mensa." I think it is in the best interests of this congregation, as a single entity, if it did not identify with the Brights movement.
|
|
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: "Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #24 on: 2003-10-14 09:59:00 » |
|
Certainly, you can state it. I don't see that certainty negates the subjective nature of knowledge and belief.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Blunderov" <squooker@mweb.co.za>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:15:34
To:<virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: "Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
Erik Aronesty
> Sent: 13 October 2003 1940
>
> Everyone has a belief system of some sort - it is the basis of all
> knowledge. It is not possible to "know" something in the sense of
> absolute and unchangable fact. You can, however choose to believe in
> things that have been verified by either your own senses or by others
or
> by some induction therof.
[Blunderov]
Can I not state with complete certainty that 'there is existence'? Is it
possible to falsify this statement?
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #25 on: 2003-10-14 22:04:04 » |
|
As our Tuesday IRC chat is approaching, here is a last look at Kant's answer to the fundamental question of philosophy, the relationship between what "is" and what we perceive -- his synthesis between rationalism ("I think therefore I am" - Rene Descarted) and empiricism ("There is nothing in the mind except what was first in the senses" - John Locke).
Two snips: One from Bertrand Russell, rejecting Kant, and one from Kurt Goedel, partially vindicating Kant. It is about mathematics, of course (the nature of mathematics and logic is well worth a future chat).
Bertrand Russell
Philosophy of Mathematical Logic (1911)
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=32;action=display;threadid=28746
<begin quote>
In spite of the fact that traditional empiricism is mistaken in its theory of knowledge, it must not be supposed that idealism is right. Idealism -- at least every theory of knowledge which is derived from Kant -- assumes that the universality of a priori truths comes from their property of expressing properties of the mind: Things appear to be thus because the nature of the appearance depends on the subject in the same way that, if we have blue spectacles, everything appears to be blue. The categories of Kant are the coloured spectacles of the mind; truths a priori are the false appearances produced by those spectacles. Besides, we must know that everybody has spectacles of the same kind and that the colour of the spectacles never changes. Kant did not deign to tell us how he knew this.
As soon as we take into account the consequences of Kant's hypothesis, it becomes evident that general and a priori truths must have the same objectivity, the same independence of the mind, that the particular facts of the physical world possess. In fact, if general truths only express psychological facts, we could not know that they would be constant from moment to moment or from person to person, and we could never use them legitimately to deduce a fact from another fact, since they would not connect facts but our ideas about the facts. Logic and mathematics force us, then, to admit a kind of realism in the scholastic sense, that is to say, to admit that there is a world of universals and of truths which do not bear directly on such and such a particular existence. This world of universals must subsist, although it cannot exist in the same sense as that in which particular data exist. We have immediate knowledge of an indefinite number of propositions about universals: this is an ultimate fact, as ultimate as sensation is. Pure mathematics -- which is usually called "logic" in its elementary parts -- is the sum of everything that we can know, whether directly or by demonstration, about certain universals.
<end quote>
Kurt Goedel
The modern development of the foundations of
mathematics in the light of philosophy (1961)
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=32;action=display;threadid=28747
<begin quote>
I would like to point out that this intuitive grasping of ever newer axioms that are logically independent from the earlier ones, which is necessary for the solvability of all problems even within a very limited domain, agrees in principle with the Kantian conception of mathematics. The relevant utterances by Kant are, it is true, incorrect if taken literally, since Kant asserts that in the derivation of geometrical theorems we always need new geometrical intuitions, and that therefore a purely logical derivation from a finite number of axioms is impossible. That is demonstrably false. However, if in this proposition we replace the term "geometrical" - by "mathematical" or "set-theoretical", then it becomes a demonstrably true proposition. I believe it to be a general feature of many of Kant's assertions that literally understood they are false but in a broader sense contain deep truths. In particular, the whole phenomenological method, as I sketched it above, goes back in its central idea to Kant, and what Husserl did was merely that he first formulated it more precisely, made it fully conscious and actually carried it out for particular domains. Indeed, just from the terminology used by Husserl, one sees how positively he himself values his relation to Kant.
I believe that precisely because in the last analysis the Kantian philosophy rests on the idea of phenomenology, albeit in a not entirely clear way, and has just thereby introduced into our thought something completely new, and indeed characteristic of every genuine philosophy -- it is precisely on that, I believe, that the enormous influence which Kant has exercised over the entire subsequent development of philosophy rests. Indeed, there is hardly any later direction that is not somehow related to Kant's ideas. On the other hand, however, just because of the lack of clarity and the literal incorrectness of many of Kant's formulations, quite divergent directions have developed out of Kant's thought - none of which, however, really did justice to the core of Kant's thought. This requirement seems to me to be met for the first time by phenomenology, which, entirely as intended by Kant, avoids both the death-defying leaps of idealism into a new metaphysics as well as the positivistic rejection of all metaphysics. But now, if the misunderstood Kant has already led to so much that is interesting in philosophy, and also indirectly in science, how much more can we expect it from Kant understood correctly?
|
|
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #26 on: 2003-10-14 22:51:35 » |
|
The issue with Kant is a utilitarian one. Not "was he right", which is clearly subjective, but it it useful to view the world through Kant colored glasses? What can you derive from it? And vice-versa regarding Russel.
-----Original Message-----
From: "rhinoceros" <rhinoceros@freemail.gr>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:04:04
To:virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
As our Tuesday IRC chat is approaching, here is a last look at Kant's answer to the fundamental question of philosophy, the relationship between what "is" and what we perceive -- his synthesis between rationalism ("I think therefore I am" - Rene Descarted) and empiricism ("There is nothing in the mind except what was first in the senses" - John Locke).
Two snips: One from Bertrand Russell, rejecting Kant, and one from Kurt Goedel, partially vindicating Kant. It is about mathematics, of course (the nature of mathematics and logic is well worth a future chat).
Bertrand Russell
Philosophy of Mathematical Logic (1911)
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=32;action=display;threadid=28746
<begin quote>
In spite of the fact that traditional empiricism is mistaken in its theory of knowledge, it must not be supposed that idealism is right. Idealism -- at least every theory of knowledge which is derived from Kant -- assumes that the universality of a priori truths comes from their property of expressing properties of the mind: Things appear to be thus because the nature of the appearance depends on the subject in the same way that, if we have blue spectacles, everything appears to be blue. The categories of Kant are the coloured spectacles of the mind; truths a priori are the false appearances produced by those spectacles. Besides, we must know that everybody has spectacles of the same kind and that the colour of the spectacles never changes. Kant did not deign to tell us how he knew this.
As soon as we take into account the consequences of Kant's hypothesis, it becomes evident that general and a priori truths must have the same objectivity, the same independence of the mind, that the particular facts of the physical world possess. In fact, if general truths only express psychological facts, we could not know that they would be constant from moment to moment or from person to person, and we could never use them legitimately to deduce a fact from another fact, since they would not connect facts but our ideas about the facts. Logic and mathematics force us, then, to admit a kind of realism in the scholastic sense, that is to say, to admit that there is a world of universals and of truths which do not bear directly on such and such a particular existence. This world of universals must subsist, although it cannot exist in the same sense as that in which particular data exist. We have immediate knowledge of an indefinite number of propositions about universals: thi!
s is an ultimate fact, as ultimate as sensation is. Pure mathematics -- which is usually called "logic" in its elementary parts -- is the sum of everything that we can know, whether directly or by demonstration, about certain universals.
<end quote>
Kurt Goedel
The modern development of the foundations of
mathematics in the light of philosophy (1961)
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=32;action=display;threadid=28747
<begin quote>
I would like to point out that this intuitive grasping of ever newer axioms that are logically independent from the earlier ones, which is necessary for the solvability of all problems even within a very limited domain, agrees in principle with the Kantian conception of mathematics. The relevant utterances by Kant are, it is true, incorrect if taken literally, since Kant asserts that in the derivation of geometrical theorems we always need new geometrical intuitions, and that therefore a purely logical derivation from a finite number of axioms is impossible. That is demonstrably false. However, if in this proposition we replace the term "geometrical" - by "mathematical" or "set-theoretical", then it becomes a demonstrably true proposition. I believe it to be a general feature of many of Kant's assertions that literally understood they are false but in a broader sense contain deep truths. In particular, the whole phenomenological method, as I sketched it above, goes back in i!
ts central idea to Kant, and what Husserl did was merely that he first formulated it more precisely, made it fully conscious and actually carried it out for particular domains. Indeed, just from the terminology used by Husserl, one sees how positively he himself values his relation to Kant.
I believe that precisely because in the last analysis the Kantian philosophy rests on the idea of phenomenology, albeit in a not entirely clear way, and has just thereby introduced into our thought something completely new, and indeed characteristic of every genuine philosophy -- it is precisely on that, I believe, that the enormous influence which Kant has exercised over the entire subsequent development of philosophy rests. Indeed, there is hardly any later direction that is not somehow related to Kant's ideas. On the other hand, however, just because of the lack of clarity and the literal incorrectness of many of Kant's formulations, quite divergent directions have developed out of Kant's thought - none of which, however, really did justice to the core of Kant's thought. This requirement seems to me to be met for the first time by phenomenology, which, entirely as intended by Kant, avoids both the death-defying leaps of idealism into a new metaphysics as well as the posit!
ivistic rejection of all metaphysics. But now, if the misunderstood Kant has already led to so much that is interesting in philosophy, and also indirectly in science, how much more can we expect it from Kant understood correctly?
----
This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29508>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #27 on: 2003-10-14 23:19:18 » |
|
[Simul]
The issue with Kant is a utilitarian one. Not "was he right", which is clearly subjective, but it it useful to view the world through Kant colored glasses? What can you derive from it? And vice-versa regarding Russel.
[rhinoceros]
Utilitarianism aside, what Russell and Goedel were trying to figure out here was the problem of what Mathematics, and Logic in particular, really are. They are not physical objects, are they? A tempting easy answer would be that they are pure ideas (which would nicely suit Kant's idealism). Another one is that they are some kind of "properties fo the physical world" or "relations between things" which exist by themselves out there.
I think Goedel tried to look deeper into what Kant was saying and after putting aside his idealism he did see something about a relation between the perception we have evolved and things like logic. I used to reject Kant too, but take a closer look at what Godel is saying. More later.
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.42
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #28 on: 2003-10-15 05:05:26 » |
|
Quote:| "The issue with Kant is a utilitarian one. Not "was he right", which is clearly subjective, but it it useful to view the world through Kant colored glasses? What can you derive from it? And vice-versa regarding Russel." |
Surely the issue in question is concerned with truth rather than utility. The idea of subjectivity you appear to be using here is not one I would expect Kant to recognise. That said, I'm not sure utility is particularly helpful here, since the form of truths that Kant is speaking of is not one that can be easily shared or verified.
|
|
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #29 on: 2003-10-15 09:20:35 » |
|
Utility, by definition, is helpful. The question is: of what use is Kant in our knowledge of the Universe? Can you propose one conclusion, drawn from Kant, that may be useful?
-----Original Message-----
From: "Kharin" <kharin@kharin.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 03:05:26
To:virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
"The issue with Kant is a utilitarian one. Not "was he right", which is clearly subjective, but it it useful to view the world through Kant colored glasses? What can you derive from it? And vice-versa regarding Russel."
Surely the issue in question is concerned with truth rather than utility. The idea of subjectivity you appear to be using here is not one I would expect Kant to recognise. That said, I'm not sure utility is particularly helpful here, since the form of truths that Kant is speaking of is not one that can be easily shared or verified.
----
This message was posted by Kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29508>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
|
Logged
