sev-mard Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 I can only refer the reader to Kant, who was nothing more than the time's response as a critic to the dry sobriety of empiricists such as Hume. It seems that one of the everlasting contributions of Marxism was its rant on how all things are "social constructions". However, modern man does not need to be religious or spiritual at all. Man can dispense with a daily prayer for divine aid. He can carry out what he proposes to do, and he can apparently translate his ideas into action without a hitch, whereas the primitive seems to be hampered at each step by fears, superstitions, and other unseen obstacles to action. However, modern man is the victim of another superstition, that of reason and empiricism. style_images/master/snapback.png Very well said actually, and I have to agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 However, modern man is the victim of another superstition, that of reason and empiricism. style_images/master/snapback.png I agree, but I would put it a little differently. Reason is not as bad as superstition, its just that it has objective limits. A reasonable man should understand the limits of materialism and materialistic reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Excellent post Sasun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Excellent post Sasun. style_images/master/snapback.png Thanks Nakharar. Do you mean the last post or the one before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siamanto Posted February 24, 2005 Report Share Posted February 24, 2005 (edited) You can be classified in the class of unclassified convictions style_images/master/snapback.png Not that easy! In the above, you are expressing yourself as if the "class of unclassified convictions" is a well defined class i.e. the class of all convictions that cannot be classified. It can be that in my case, I can't determine whether my "conviction" can or cannot be classified! I can't even tell whether "it" is a conviction or not! Also, you are free to classify my "conviction," but I will still refuse to do so! I agree, but I would put it a little differently. Reason is not as bad as superstition, its just that it has objective limits. A reasonable man should understand the limits of materialism and materialistic reasoning. style_images/master/snapback.png Not that easy! (Too repetitious! ) What are "objective limits?" Unfortunately, I have to finish two documents before Friday evening and have to go! In the meantime, I suggest that you consider Quine's concept of "intersubjectivity" (as a form/illusion of "objectivity.") Edited February 24, 2005 by Siamanto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 24, 2005 Report Share Posted February 24, 2005 I agree, but I would put it a little differently. Reason is not as bad as superstition, its just that it has objective limits. A reasonable man should understand the limits of materialism and materialistic reasoning. style_images/master/snapback.png Maybe I wasn't clear, but that is essentially what I meant. Over emphasis on reason, dependency on empirical science, is misleading, because reason itself is an assumption. Moreover, it requires faith in reason to use reason, and it requires the use of reason to reach faith. It may sound confusing, but that is the way it is, since all things are essentially metaphysical assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 24, 2005 Report Share Posted February 24, 2005 (edited) Maybe I wasn't clear, but that is essentially what I meant. Over emphasis on reason, dependency on empirical science, is misleading, because reason itself is an assumption. Moreover, it requires faith in reason to use reason, and it requires the use of reason to reach faith. It may sound confusing, but that is the way it is, since all things are essentially metaphysical assumptions. style_images/master/snapback.png Yes Mouse, I very much agree to your statement about "faith in reason". Strictly speaking there is no proof of anything at all. It is all based on observation and faith that our observations are veritable representations of reality, as well as faith that the way we reason and interpret the observations are truthful. Most people have never thought about this which is equivalent to dogmatizing accepted scientific methodologies as something absolute. That in itself is a self-imposed limitation. Edited February 24, 2005 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 24, 2005 Report Share Posted February 24, 2005 You can argue that we accept the statement a=a on faith. Basically everything can be attributed to faith. Doing that, you strip the idea of faith of any significance. It is like saying everything is good and there is no bad. There must be a scale somewhere. That whole train of thought disregards that there are degrees of faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.