Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-02-2017, 01:35 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 01:16 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 12:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What justification do you think materialism needs? What burden of proof are you establishing in order to accept this materialism as justified? And why are you establishing it? What deficiency does a materialistic worldview have with respect to describing and explaining reality?

It allows him to sneak in his “necessary being”.

Then why was I a dualist before I accepted the necessary being? This seems like an unjustified accusation.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 01:37 PM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2017 01:43 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 01:33 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It's evidenced that the universe is the only thing one can refer to as external? I'm a dualist. I don't think the physical is the only substance. I've generally been drawn towards substance dualism, but I acknowledge some uncertainty in this area.

Still asking the wrong questions.

What is external to you is a matter of having a coherent definition of the word "external". Evidence only enters into it insofar as you need to look at an entity to see if it fits that definition.

Solipsism, dualism, materialism, and so on are all ontological positions. Ontological positions are, by their very nature, exclusively semantic. They serve only to give names to things. The only qualification an ontological position needs is to be coherent and have workable definitions.

Solipsism fails because it tries to stretch the definition of "internal" so far that it becomes useless. Idealism fails because it does the same for the definition of "consciousness". Dualism and so forth can technically be workable, but in practice usually just serve as a gateway for people to try and slip in entities or forces that are not in evidence.

Most of the time, any given monist position (that is, an ontological position that says the universe is basically one thing) serves just fine. You can call that monist substance whatever you like (again, unless it breaks another definition, as with idealism), but popular usage seems to have settled on "matter" and "materialism".

In the end, all ontology boils down to "the universe exists, and we call whatever it is made of 'matter'". All else is frippery.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
08-02-2017, 01:41 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 01:35 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 01:16 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  It allows him to sneak in his “necessary being”.

Then why was I a dualist before I accepted the necessary being? This seems like an unjustified accusation.

What the fuck is a "necessary being?"

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 01:41 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 12:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 11:51 AM)Naielis Wrote:  That simply isn't true. This materialism needs to be justified.

What justification do you think materialism needs? What burden of proof are you establishing in order to accept this materialism as justified? And why are you establishing it? What deficiency does a materialistic worldview have with respect to describing and explaining reality?

Materialism cannot explain the introspective nature of the mind. It doesn't even include minds at all. Consciousness is left ignored in materialist thought.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 01:42 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 01:41 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 01:35 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Then why was I a dualist before I accepted the necessary being? This seems like an unjustified accusation.

What the fuck is a "necessary being?"

Different thread.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 01:42 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 01:41 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 12:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What justification do you think materialism needs? What burden of proof are you establishing in order to accept this materialism as justified? And why are you establishing it? What deficiency does a materialistic worldview have with respect to describing and explaining reality?

Materialism cannot explain the introspective nature of the mind. It doesn't even include minds at all. Consciousness is left ignored in materialist thought.

How does materialism not include minds? Scientists study the mind constantly to better understand how brains, thoughts, consciousness, and the mind work.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 01:43 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 01:42 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 01:41 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What the fuck is a "necessary being?"

Different thread.

Still a relevant question I want answered because if you're going to throw it about then I need to know what you mean

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 01:44 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 01:41 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Materialism cannot explain the introspective nature of the mind. It doesn't even include minds at all. Consciousness is left ignored in materialist thought.

This is simply not true. Materialism has no issue with the subject of minds. It simply sees no need to categorize them as some second substance.

Minds are brain activity. Materialism has no issue with this.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
08-02-2017, 01:45 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 01:43 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Still a relevant question I want answered because if you're going to throw it about then I need to know what you mean

"Contingent being": an entity that needs an explanation for its existence.

"Necessary being": an entity that does not.

Assigned to the universe and the supposed creator deity, respectively. They are also just formalized bare assertion and special pleading, but there you are.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
08-02-2017, 01:48 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 01:45 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 01:43 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Still a relevant question I want answered because if you're going to throw it about then I need to know what you mean

"Contingent being": an entity that needs an explanation for its existence.

"Necessary being": an entity that does not.

Assigned to the universe and the supposed creator deity, respectively. They are also just formalized bare assertion and special pleading, but there you are.

So Naiellis is a pragmatist when it comes to their "necessary being" in that they believe it requires no explanation and begs no additional questioning because in their mind the universe works only through the assumption that such a being exists?

Sounds like the "first cause/mover" argument wrapped around the special pleading of "I don't have to show you any evidence. It exists because I say so."

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: