What's it all about...............Alfie

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And? Do you think that four lines in a Wiki entry gets round the problems? Could you outline MacLaurin's thesis and how you think it works? Moreover given the challenge you have been asked for before where does it link to any of your claims?

1: Yes. Newtonian can be applied since newton introduced consistency, coherence and generality against alternative approaches where phenomena were studied and explained in relative isolation from each other

2: No I won't outline it .....because you want me to.

[Nearly Sane]

1: Yes. Newtonian can be applied since newton introduced consistency, coherence and generality against alternative approaches where phenomena were studied and explained in relative isolation from each other

2: No I won't outline it .....because you want me to.

Again I would suggest it's better not to conflate the concepts of personal coherence to a philosophical concept. I think it's better to use the concept of rationally discoverable laws here, and while i'l happily agree that Newtonian thought (which existed pre Newton, of course) is hugely influential in spheres where both coherence and rationality are assumed, it has it's issues as you stray into to the social sciences and with post Newtonian physics.

At base though the problems as a philosophy appears to me to be the need for the assumption that it describes a reality rather appearance of reality which is, I suppose, just another expression of hard solipsism, and its basis on that idea of reality means that it can only be descriptive.


This then leads to the overall problem for gods of deism and more particularly theism being posited, since if they are part of this they are either bound by it, or they cannot exist. Following this there can be no miracles and the resurrection if it happened is no more important than a fart.

[Nearly Sane]

Overall though the problem here in terms of the discussion is that while I find philosophy interesting, it doesn't seem to be how I live. Maybe it is how I should live, maybe we all should develop some coherent and consistent world view but given our limitations, and that applies to the great philosophers as much as me, I fail to see how. I don't find it worrying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Overall though the problem here in terms of the discussion is that while I find philosophy interesting, it doesn't seem to be how I live. Maybe it is how I should live, maybe we all should develop some coherent and consistent world view but given our limitations, and that applies to the great philosophers as much as me, I fail to see how. I don't find it worrying.

But Nearly there must for you be at least one coherent and generality running through your experience. The need for a methodology. We know this because you keep banging on about it.

[Sebastian Toe]

Overall though the problem here in terms of the discussion is that while I find philosophy interesting, it doesn't seem to be how I live. Maybe it is how I should live, maybe we all should develop some coherent and consistent world view but given our limitations, and that applies to the great philosophers as much as me, I fail to see how. I don't find it worrying.

I find that following these gets me through life quite adequately, thank you! 

The First Law of Philosophy: For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.

The Second Law of Philosophy: They're both wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I find that following these gets me through life quite adequately, thank you! 

The First Law of Philosophy: For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.

The Second Law of Philosophy: They're both wrong.

The third law of philosophy: You feel a little funny...........and then it wears off.

[Bramble]

What is IT......ALL about?

This question almost always seems to lead to the same answer - us. Perhaps that's why we ask it.

[Sebastian Toe]

The third law of philosophy: You feel a little funny...........and then it wears off.

You're  wrong! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This question almost always seems to lead to the same answer - us. Perhaps that's why we ask it.

Anything wrong with that?

[Bramble]

Anything wrong with that?

I would say so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would say so.

What's wrong with it?

[Bramble]

What's wrong with it?

I can't tell whether you're being serious. Perhaps you're not asking me whether anthropocentrism is problematic but whether asking your question is wrong. Maybe you could clarify. If you genuinely can't see anything wrong with believing that the universe is all about us then I'm not sure I can really help you.

[Nearly Sane]

But Nearly there must for you be at least one coherent and generality running through your experience. The need for a methodology. We know this because you keep banging on about it.

You often bring up the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism, and indeed state that you are a methodological naturalist..the method applies to matter of facts after you accept an axiom that these things can be investigated using the set of methods that make up the methodology. Beyond that the philosophical claims about reality are not addressed, nor are the questions about subjects that do not appear within the original assumption. Hope's and other's claims of miracles are specifically outside that methodology by definition. That's what the ask is for a methodology for supernatural claims.

The working and known methods I have are those of naturalism, and a pinch of logic in terms of such concepts of the excluded middle (though perhaps even that addition is suspect and only appears true because of how we experience things). However the vast majority of what I regard as important to me, how I should act, how I interact with others, how I live seem unamenable to such methods and investigation. I have no concept other than a tenuous one of coherence in such things, nor do I see it in something Newtonian or even non Newtonian (note I think that as a binary set is problematic - where does Liebniz fit there?


And as I have not even the circular certainties of Cartesianism, what can be coherent, what might be consistent? Philosophies or world views are abstractions from living. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can't tell whether you're being serious. Perhaps you're not asking me whether anthropocentrism is problematic but whether asking your question is wrong. Maybe you could clarify. If you genuinely can't see anything wrong with believing that the universe is all about us then I'm not sure I can really help you.

If you want to annihilate your existent self to avoid thought that is up to you.

What makes thinking about what it's all about anthropocentric?

[Bramble]

If you want to annihilate your existent self to avoid thought that is up to you.

What on earth are you talking about? I can't even connect this bizarre comment with anything I've so far said.

What makes thinking about what it's all about anthropocentric?

Nothing, as far as I know, and I haven't suggested that it does. However, I did suggest that the question 'What is it all about?' has an uncanny habit of leading to the conclusion that it's all about us, which is anthropocentric. It needn't do so, of course. That wouldn't be anthropocentric.

[torridon]

What on earth are you talking about? I can't even connect this bizarre comment with anything I've so far said.

Bramble, meet Vlad.  Vlad, meet Bramble

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What on earth are you talking about? I can't even connect this bizarre comment with anything I've so far said.

Why leave yourself out as unimportant. Yes size wise we are a sub particle in the rectum of a sub particle of  an insignificant sub particle  but in terms of complexity there is nothing comparable for at least light years around and we do exist so there is no warrant to ignore ourselves.

[Sebastian Toe]

  but in terms of complexity there is nothing comparable for at least light years around

Vladies and gentlemen I give you -  Daphnia pulex.
No need to applaud.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladies and gentlemen I give you -  Daphnia pulex.
No need to applaud.

Alright then smartarse how many Facebook friends does Daphnia pulled have?

[Sebastian Toe]

Alright then smartarse how many Facebook friends does Daphnia pulled have?

28. Why do you ask?

[Bramble]

Why leave yourself out as unimportant. Yes size wise we are a sub particle in the rectum of a sub particle of  an insignificant sub particle  but in terms of complexity there is nothing comparable for at least light years around and we do exist so there is no warrant to ignore ourselves.

Who said anything about leaving humans out? I think this is one of the weirdest exchanges I've ever had.

[Jack Knave]

We can't know what it is all about for we are all in an unfinished process who's ultimate outcome is beyond our vision, imagination and capacities. All we can do is play the 'game' without even knowing what the full scope of the rules are, and because of this we often get burned.

[Nearly Sane]

We can't know what it is all about for we are all in an unfinished process who's ultimate outcome is beyond our vision, imagination and capacities. All we can do is play the 'game' without even knowing what the full scope of the rules are, and because of this we often get burned.

I may be reading you wrong but you seem to imply that there is enough understanding for you to think there is an ultimate outcome and rules to the game.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I may be reading you wrong but you seem to imply that there is enough understanding for you to think there is an ultimate outcome and rules to the game.

But is it not natural to feel that way?

[Nearly Sane]

But is it not natural to feel that way?

I don't, are you suggesting I'm unnatural?