From nothing, Reason...

Originally posted by LemonJello
The clownish behavior continues. Good grief.

The shovel/water analogy is silly in this context. The only thing I'll say about it is that one's inability to dig down toward a possible water source does not have any necessary connection with whether or not such water exists.

Not in dispute. Water still meaningless, inconsequential.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'd say the following quotes are more representative with what I've been asserting regarding Art's take on the world than the slivers otherwise provided.

"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods."

"The fundament upon which all our knowledge and learning opportune death; and the best of it is that every one of us can avail himself of it."

I'll just take the first one; do you know where it's from?

Anyway, to put the quote in it's full context:

In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of this world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods. Nor is it otherwise in art; for there genuine work, seldom found and still more seldom appreciated, is again and again driven out by dullness, insipidity, and affectation.

In other words, "absurdity and perversity" refers to other philosophers, not Schopenhauer. He's being nasty.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not in dispute. Water still meaningless, inconsequential.

It is in dispute.

You stated that S. stands in endorsement of the claim that reason does not exist. Your argument for this is essentially:

1. S. claims knowledge does not exist.
2. Knowledge is a necessary condition for truth.
3. Truth is a necessary condition for reason.
4. Therefore, S. is committed to the claim that reason does not exist.

We've already shown that your 1 and your 2 are false. The current dispute here bears relation to the falsity of 2.

Give it up, clown.

Originally posted by LemonJello
It is in dispute.

You stated that S. stands in endorsement of the claim that reason does not exist.

Or one could simply point out that the principle of sufficient reason is fundamental to Schopenhauer's account of the world as "representation". To the point where he wrote a seperate work on its "fourfold root". (I think bbarr has already pointed this out, in fact.)

Originally posted by LemonJello
It is in dispute.

You stated that S. stands in endorsement of the claim that reason does not exist. Your argument for this is essentially:

1. S. claims knowledge does not exist.
2. Knowledge is a necessary condition for truth.
3. Truth is a necessary condition for reason.
4. Therefore, S. is committed to the claim that reason does not exist.

We've already shown that your 1 and your 2 are false.

Give it up, clown.

Sorry to have ignored your previous posts, but this one makes no real argument, either. Without knowledge, whether it exists or not, truth is irrelevant. "Clown." That's the best you can do?

Originally posted by dottewell
Or one could simply point out that the principle of sufficient reason is fundamental to Schopenhauer's account of the world as "representation". To the point where he wrote a seperate work on its "fourfold root". (I think bbarr has already pointed this out, in fact.)

Right. To show that Freaky is wrong, it is also sufficient to demonstrate that the existence of reason is an integral assumption in Schopenhauer's work.

Originally posted by dottewell
I'll just take the first one; do you know where it's from?

Anyway, to put the quote in it's full context:

In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of this world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods. Nor is it otherwise in art; for there genuine work, seldom found and still more seldom appreciated, is ...[text shortened]... rdity and perversity" refers to other philosophers, not Schopenhauer. He's being nasty.

I dunno. Seems rather controversial.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Right. To show that Freaky is wrong, it is also sufficient to demonstrate that the existence of reason is an integral assumption in Schopenhauer's work.

Yes, but to be fair I don't think the RHP forums are the best place for a discussion about Schopenhauer's philosophy.

I'm more interested in the argument against (atheism? mechanistic materialism?), which I must admit I don't yet understand.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Sorry to have ignored your previous posts, but this one makes no real argument, either. Without knowledge, whether it exists or not, truth is irrelevant. "Clown." That's the best you can do?

After your display in this thread, you certainly deserve the title of Forum Clown.

What's Premise 1 of your argument, again? You know, the argument you have stashed away...the one that prompted your starting this thread...the one that's gonna blow all the mechanistic materialist atheists out of the water...

Originally posted by dottewell
which I must admit I don't yet understand.

You're not alone.

Originally posted by LemonJello
After your display in this thread, you certainly deserve the title of Forum Clown.

What's Premise 1 of your argument, again? You know, the argument you have stashed away...the one that prompted your starting this thread...the one that's gonna blow all the mechanistic materialist atheists out of the water...

It shouldn't be that much of an effort for you to use your mouse to hit the right spots on your monitor, go backwards in the conversation and ascertain the beginning thread. But then again, you don't seem to want to actually consider the salient points, rather, you appear to prefer to argue what is not in dispute and then insult. I bet that yields all types of persuasion in your life.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It shouldn't be that much of an effort for you to use your mouse to hit the right spots on your monitor, go backwards in the conversation and ascertain the beginning thread. But then again, you don't seem to want to actually consider the salient points, rather, you appear to prefer to argue what is not in dispute and then insult. I bet that yields all types of persuasion in your life.

All that's happened in this thread so far is you keep making false claims; people keep demonstrating that they are false; you either cannot understand why your claims are false, or you obfuscate for effect.

You have not presented any actual content toward demonstrating your thesis here, which is that "reason itself is reason enough to discount evolution and/or happenstance as the cause of life as we know it." I think we're all ready for you to commence.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Although you may be knee-deep in academia and your position is never to be questioned, if the choice comes down to what you continue to assert Schopenhauer is saying and what Schopenhauer is clearly saying, I'll go with the latter over the former.

This performance is shameful, Freaky. People are pointing out how you have misunderstood
Schopenhauer and you stubbornly refuse the rebuke. Frankly, I think that this is merely an
effort for you to say throw up your hands and claim that you cannot continue because no one
understands the 'real truth' about Schopenhauer.

Your bizarre readings of Schopenhauer, however, have been helpful. I now can understand
how you can believe that the first two chapters of Genesis harmonize: you come up with a
conclusion and, by force of will, demand that your brain make the text in question concord
with it.

Nemesio

Originally posted by LemonJello
All that's happened in this thread so far is you keep making false claims; people keep demonstrating that they are false; you either cannot understand why your claims are false, or you obfuscate for effect.

You have not presented any actual content toward demonstrating your thesis here, which is that "reason itself is reason enough to discount evolutio ...[text shortened]... penstance as the cause of life as we know it." I think we're all ready for you to commence.

Perhaps you're unclear as to what makes a claim false, or perhaps you prefer to obscure what is plainly being said for unknown benefit. The only claim being made at this point is that the majority atheistic position for explanation of the physical world is mechanistic materialism. Not one person has stepped forward to lay bare that claim as false.

One person brought out a non-MM atheistic position which did not explain the physical realm, but rather held an agnostic position toward the same.

Let's break it down for you, since you seem to be having such a hard time with the whole concept. The claim of atheistic MM has several components, beginning with atheism. If someone's counter-claim does not contain atheism at its core, it cannot be considered a comment on atheistic MM. The next component is an explanation for the physical realm. As a sub-set to the physical realm, the physical realm is assumed to be real. Therefore, a counter-claim must contain an assumption of the reality of the physical realm, and must also provide an explanation for the same.

The claim that I have put forth is that the majority atheistic explanation for the physical realm is MM. If that is a false claim, please expose it, as no one else has done so to date.

Originally posted by Nemesio
This performance is shameful, Freaky. People are pointing out how you have misunderstood
Schopenhauer and you stubbornly refuse the rebuke. Frankly, I think that this is merely an
effort for you to say throw up your hands and claim that you cannot continue because no one
understands the 'real truth' about Schopenhauer.

Your bizarre readings of Scho ...[text shortened]... force of will, demand that your brain make the text in question concord
with it.

Nemesio

While I always look forward to your input, don't you think it a little suspicious that the only person actually quoting the man, or citing accepted sources is... little ol' me? More quizzical than that is the appearance of AS in the first place, but diversion does seem to be the name of the game around here.

If I have mischaracterized the man's stance I welcome the (well-substantiated) rebuke. Merely calling something 'bizarre,' does not count toward an acceptable rebuke, BTW.