From nothing, Reason...

Originally posted by Starrman
This is all backwards. You can certianly have truth, regardless of having knowledge of truth. You can even have justified true belief without having knowledge, but you cannot be said to have knowledge without also having justified true belief.

Let's say I had lived in a cave all my life and never seen the sky. I may unjustifiably believe that the sky ...[text shortened]... t, despite my lack of knowledge.

You seem to be labelling truth as knowledge and visa versa.

It's not at all backwards. While truth exists whether we have knowledge or not, truth cannot be described as such without knowledge. As bbarr accurately pointed out, justified and unjustified beliefs are distinct. Unjustified beliefs based upon falsehoods are on equal footing with unjustified beliefs based upon truth, simply for the reason that neither are justified (connected to truth).

The only beliefs which can trump either of the unjustified beliefs are those which can be justified.

Originally posted by bbarr
This quote is from the very same work you cite above.

"Reason deserves to be called a prophet; for in showing us the consequence and effect of our actions in the present, does it not tell us what the future will be? This is precisely why reason is such an excellent power of restraint in moments when we are possessed by some base passion, some fit ontradicts your assinine assertion that Schopenhauer thought reason "does not exist".

Cherry-picking can be done by anyone. The sources provided both quote and summarize AS' thoughts in a similar vein as I have provided. Virtually every reputable web source--- as well as countless outside sources (read: books)--- characterize AS' views as I have put forth here. Choosing between those summaries and the contrarian nonsense of a no-account philosophy also-ran is non-problematic.

Originally posted by bbarr
Another passage, this from Schopenhauer's On Education:

"To acquire a knowledge of the world might be defined as the aim of all education; and it follows from what I have said that special stress should be laid upon beginning to acquire this knowledge at the right end. As I have shown, this means, in the main, that the particular observation of a thi ...[text shortened]... nowledge would write a whole article on how best to go about teaching people about the world!

Pretty strange that somebody skeptical about both reason and knowledge would write a whole article on how best to go about teaching people about the world!
I didn't say the man's thoughts were consistent; I was merely providing summaries of his thoughts, as perceived by a large group of people, not just l'il ol' Freaky. Amusing disconnected antecdotes aside, most of what AS has written paints a picture of an irrational (almost Buddist-like) world.

Originally posted by bbarr
Not only are idiots running amok, but as individuals they seem to periodically disappear and be replaced by similar versions. You are of course familiar with the names...

While you have provided some objective thoughts in the past, if this is any indication of your mental state, the sting of being called an idiot by you is diminished considerably.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Cherry-picking can be done by anyone. The sources provided both quote and summarize AS' thoughts in a similar vein as I have provided. Virtually every reputable web source--- as well as countless outside sources (read: books)--- characterize AS' views as I have put forth here. Choosing between those summaries and the contrarian nonsense of a no-account philosophy also-ran is non-problematic.

Now I think you are doing this just to get attention like my 3-year old. You know you are wrong
and you've been totally called on it with citations and summaries.

Enter the smoke screen of 'cherry picking' and the 'every web page I found' defense
(without any substantiation, I might add). I'm sure among your colleagues, you're probably
cock-of-the-walk, but out in the real world, you're really not as smart as you'd like to think.

And I know what you are doing: you're distracting your readers from the fact that you basically
have no material argument for your main assertion (that atheists by-and-large are mechanistic
materialists) and your main conclusion (that such a position entails that reason cannot evolve
from the Big Bang). So, you put up this little side show in order to get people so exasperated
that they forget you fell on your face with your main argument.

What a fraud you are!

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Amusing disconnected antecdotes aside, most of what AS has written paints a picture of an irrational (almost Buddist-like) world.

More bald assertions with only an out-of-context quotation here and there. I note there is no
response to the substance of bbarr's comments or the extensive Schopenhauer quotations he
provided.

I'm sure you're very impressive among the sheep of your congregation.

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's not at all backwards. While truth exists whether we have knowledge or not, truth cannot be described as such without knowledge. As bbarr accurately pointed out, justified and unjustified beliefs are distinct. Unjustified beliefs based upon falsehoods are on equal footing with unjustified beliefs based upon truth, simply for the reason that neither ...[text shortened]... nly beliefs which can trump either of the unjustified beliefs are those which can be justified.

younger Freaky: "Without knowledge, obviously there can be no truth."

older Freaky: "truth exists whether we have knowledge or not"

Despite your stubborn inability to admit when you are wrong, you're making progress (sort of).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Cherry-picking can be done by anyone. The sources provided both quote and summarize AS' thoughts in a similar vein as I have provided. Virtually every reputable web source--- as well as countless outside sources (read: books)--- characterize AS' views as I have put forth here. Choosing between those summaries and the contrarian nonsense of a no-account philosophy also-ran is non-problematic.

So after all that, you're sticking to your guns? You are still willing to stand by your claim that S. thinks reason does not exist?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Now I think you are doing this just to get attention like my 3-year old. You know you are wrong
and you've been totally called on it with citations and summaries.

Enter the smoke screen of 'cherry picking' and the 'every web page [b]I found' defense
(without any substantiation, I might add). I'm sure among your colleagues, you're probably
cock- ...[text shortened]... get you fell on your face with your main argument.

What a fraud you are!

Nemesio[/b]

You can't be serious. Are you reading the posts within this thread, or just every other one? When AS was inappropriately (read: not relevant to the conversation for a specific reason) brought into the conversation, his contributions were dismissed. The reasons for the rejection were numerated by me, using quotes to support my position. Those quotes included the man's own words, as well as summaries provided by accepted websites. For instance:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/

Here, AS' perspective on the world is summarized as being essentially meaningless, devoid of knowledge, etc. These are quotes, not words that I force onto the man's work. These quotes have already been offered previously, so I won't go through the process of posting them in their entirety here again. If you are interested, read any source for yourself.

There is an easy way to refute how I have characterized AS' position. Instead of cherry-picking quotes that help couch your perspective, quote summaries of others within the field... as I have done.

Originally posted by LemonJello
So after all that, you're sticking to your guns? You are still willing to stand by your claim that S. thinks reason does not exist?

Go back and read. It may yield results unexpected.



But then again, it probably won't.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Go back and read. It may yield results unexpected.



But then again, it probably won't.

Freaky, arguing with you in the hope of rational debate is like trying to stone somebody to death with popcorn.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Freaky, arguing with you in the hope of rational debate is like trying to stone somebody to death with popcorn.

Ironically, I think there is something to said for your point of view.

Too bad you haven't said it!

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Ironically, I think there is something to said for your point of view.

Too bad you haven't said it!

Once we actually get people to stay on topic, I'm certain it will be said. Perhaps that is the impetus behind the multiple distractions...

Although cute, the popcorn analogy was a touch weak.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You can't be serious. Are you reading the posts within this thread, or just every other one? When AS was inappropriately (read: not relevant to the conversation for a specific reason) brought into the conversation, his contributions were dismissed. The reasons for the rejection were numerated by me, using quotes to support my position. Those quotes inc ...[text shortened]... help couch your perspective, quote summaries of others within the field... as I have done.

It's unbelievable. Saying that the universe is not a rationale place does not mean that its
constituents lack reason (much less knowledge)!

Note from the very site you cited:

Schopenhauer's claim that the subject-object distinction is the most general condition for human knowledge has its theoretical source in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, for Kant similarly grounded his own theory of knowledge upon a highly-abstracted, formalized, and universalized subject-object distinction.

If there was no knowledge, then why would Schopenhauer have conditions for a human's having of
it?

Consider the final paragraph of discussion on this work:

As noted above, this does not imply that with respect to the question of whether higher-dimensional knowledge of the thing-in-itself is possible, Schopenhauer became more Kantian as he grew older. For unlike Kant, it appears that Schopenhauer always believed that such knowledge of the thing-in-itself is possible. Throughout his philosophical writings, Schopenhauer acknowledges that mystical experience might provide this sort of knowledge, and this view was probably only reinforced by his increasing interest in Upanishadic and Buddhistic thought as the years went by. Over time, however, Schopenhauer did achieve a more perspicuous expression of the view that the conflict-ridden daily world is only a horrible vision compelled by human nature, as it exercises its efforts to achieve knowledge at both the general (subject-object) and specific (space, time, causality) levels of the principle of sufficient reason.

Was he pessimist? Yes. Did he think that most people achieved the state of knowledge that he
did? No. Did he think the world was devoid of knowledge?

Absolutely not.

Give it up, Freaky. Every place you cite contradicts your basic claims about Schopenhauer.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
It's unbelievable. Saying that the universe is not a rationale place does not mean that its
constituents lack reason (much less knowledge)!

Note from the very site you cited:

Schopenhauer's claim that the subject-object distinction is the most general condition for human knowledge has its theoretical source in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason , Freaky. Every place you cite contradicts your basic claims about Schopenhauer.

Nemesio

Truly, it is unbelievable that you can read an entire article, quote from it, and somehow not only miss what has been quoted (within this thread), but even go so far as to contradict it specifically in your own post.

Nemesio:
"Did he think the world was devoid of knowledge?

Absolutely not."

Go back and read it again. Maybe this time you'll get it right.

And let's try to keep focused, shall we? When did the 'its constituents lack reason' enter into the discussion? Oh, now I remember: just now in your post.