10 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiWhy do they need further explanation? They are direct experiences of the world. You don't do anything with them - you just have them.
You haven't explained perceptions except to repeat they are experiences. So what are perceptions really? And what do you do with them? And how do you do it?
It is for you to show why this explanation is inadequate, or - if you have a better explanation - to set it out. Why won't you do so?
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by dottewellThen please see my earlier posts in this thread. Our discussion started with your hit and run criticism of my world-view. But you have not been able to explain what you mean, or offer any rational alternative. Either you're blowing smoke and you don't know what you're taking about, or you're not really serious about discussing this. I see no reason to answer your questions until you can present a well reasoned criticism of my world-view - or can present a reasonable alternative.
Why do they need further explanation? They are direct experiences of the world. You don't do anything with them - you just have them.
It is for you to show why this explanation is inadequate, or - if you have a better explanation - to set it out. Why won't you do so?
11 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiWhile this post certainly exhibits a vast collection of words and relatively commendable grammar compared to the status quo, it is nearly devoid of meaning. Coletti, you must really get a kick out of using words whose meanings you don't grasp, presumably because you were impressed when you saw them used and figured you could impress others by using them. You're not fooling me. Your post doesn't communicate anything substantial, other than that you'd like to be regarded as a knoweldgeable man with a large vocabulary by those shallow enough to be impressed in the same manner that you were.
Let me try to explain. There are two kinds of world-views, rational and irrational. Mysticism is an example of an irrational world-view. Knowledge is a sort of ambiguous emotional experience, with no means or foundation for separating reality from imagination.
Rationalism is rational of course, but it's knowledge is based on innate ideas. What innate ...[text shortened]... ed. But I know that Christianity is the only completely sound and rational world-view there is.
11 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Coletti
One of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is Jesus Christ dies for the sins of the world. And the epistles speak of the teaching of and miracles of Jesus.
It would make sense if we understood that His existence and dying was but a parable
to be understood metaphorically. Then the objective truth would shine out. Anyway,
the Epistles contain very little of Jesus's teaching directly, just a few sentences here
and there, and the only quotation are the words of institution at the Last Supper.
And the Scriptures speak of literally touching the wounds of Jesus after his resurrection. If Jesus did not exist, then none of these things would make sense.
You write 'Scripture speaks literally...' but that is not true. It does not make an
indication one way or the other about whether the story with St Thomas was or was
not a literal account (after all, it is in St John which had the 'metaphorical'
account of the Jesus-as-Passover-Lamb). Just like Jonah, this story about faith
and belief doesn't necessitate its historicity.
Jesus himself spoke in parables - does not entail that Jesus was a parable.
I'm not saying that because Jesus spoke in parables that He was a parable. Please
don't confuse the argument by introducing things I did not say. I'm using the term
'necessary' very precisely to make it clear.
Nemesio
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWe played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge and you did not mourn.
Your post doesn't communicate anything substantial
Your posts demand an answer; that answer now demands another answer; that answer is met with your accusation of gibberish. Capital formula!
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiThe theory that perceptions are direct experiences of the world and not some mysterious intermediary "thing" is pretty much the status quo in modern philosophy. What further explanation does it need? Why is it "not rational"? Presumably you are aware of Occam's razor? Presumably you know the onus is on you to explain why we need to introduce these mysterious "things", called perceptions?
Then please see my earlier posts in this thread. Our discussion started with your hit and run criticism of my world-view. But you have not been able to explain what you mean, or offer any rational alternative. Either you're blowing smoke and you don't know what you're taking about, or you're not really serious about discussing this. I see no reason t ...[text shortened]... an present a well reasoned criticism of my world-view - or can present a reasonable alternative.
My criticism was not "hit and run" - I made several points about your initial post, most of which were answered by more obfuscation.
The point about philosophy is surely to present things in the clearest possible light. You seem incapable of doing that.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat's *my* M.O., Doc...get it straight.
While this post certainly exhibits a vast collection of words and relatively commendable grammar compared to the status quo, it is nearly devoid of meaning. Coletti, you must really get a kick out of using words whose meanings you don't grasp, presumably because you were impressed when you saw them used and figured you could impress others by using ...[text shortened]... ith a large vocabulary by those shallow enough to be impressed in the same manner that you were.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by Coletti'World view' is a ridiculous term, and cannot be defined by a few trite phrases like "Jesus died on the Cross for Mankind's Sins" or "We are all born of original sin and require the salvation only Jesus can offer", so I'm not sure what you're after. Here, I'll give it a shot:
Tell what is your world-view. I can't even begin to consider it otherwise.
The increasing globalization of communications and information sharing has led to a paradigm shift. We are no longer bound by physical geographical constraints, allowing for radical cultural exchange heretofor unexperienced by society. Advancements in scientific knowledge, methodology and technology have allowed us to take a more reasoned and objective approach toward various avenues of humanistic studies. We are living in an Age of Information and Communication.
Should there be more?
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMore reasoned than...in the past, unless you wish to contend that Cortes' and his bishops treatment of the indigenous population of Central America was enlightened. I won't bother attempting to define Reason entirely...although in this case, it would mean attempting to understand a newly-discovered culture and the origins of its' beliefs, rather than wholesale destruction of their sacred texts as "the works of the Devil". There are other examples throughout history, but I'm sure you get my point.
"More reasoned" than what, exactly? What will the basis of that reason be, its value system, its norms and means?
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by dottewellYou introduced the concept of perceptions but failed to explain them.
The theory that perceptions are direct experiences of the world and not some mysterious intermediary "thing" is pretty much the status quo in modern philosophy. What further explanation does it need? Why is it "not rational"? Presumably you are aware of Occam's razor? Presumably you know the onus is on you to explain why we need to introduce these mys ...[text shortened]... hy is surely to present things in the clearest possible light. You seem incapable of doing that.
You made no points against my views - merely asserted some things you do not want to explain.
Why should I defend against claptrap? (That is a rhetorical question.)
14 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiYou want to address the points in my post since they are directly relevant to
You introduced the concept of perceptions but failed to explain them.
You made no points against my views - merely asserted some things you do not want to explain.
Why should I defend against claptrap? (That is a rhetorical question.)
your premise?
Nemesio
14 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ColettiI have explained perceptions as direct experiences of the world. I have asked you why they require, in your view, further explanation.
You introduced the concept of perceptions but failed to explain them.
You made no points against my views - merely asserted some things you do not want to explain.
Why should I defend against claptrap? (That is a rhetorical question.)
You have not provided an answer.
I have explained why your antecedent was wrong, because we have various ways of grounding truth. I can recap on these if you wish. Your explanation of why these were not acceptable was unclear at best, but seemed to refer back to the perceptions issue.
You have also made two basic errors; claiming it follows from my view that perceptions are experiences that experience is perception, and claiming it follows from "I have no means of grounding truth" that "anything is possibly true".
I have tried to elicit your view, to get you to explain and explore it for those who may have difficulty understanding what you are saying.
You have not.
It is a shame you now seem to have resorted to calling my posts "claptrap". I will leave it to others to judge whose posts are more deserving of this label.