241–250 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it doesn't match what I've seen from the behaviour of hedonists. it matches what i've seen. > Furthermore, they aren't 'pain avoidant' they are 'pleasure seeking', there's a big difference. no one is arguing that > I don't think what I said was unclear you put words in my mouth and then made up two other irrelevant arguments
> "it matches what i've seen." Describe the behaviour of the hedonists you know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can move around the definition of pleasure, but then you end up with situations where pain as a means to pleasure is indistinguishable from pain as equal to pleasure, which undermines the whole premise of hedonism (that only pleasure has value).
How could you possibly end up in a situation where pain is equal to pleasure? I think pain would only be considered positive when it leads to greater pleasure. Epicurus has a great hedonistic philosophy [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus ], here are some abridged excerpts from the wiki page: Epicurus' philosophy is based on the theory that all good and bad derive from the sensations of what he defined as pleasu…
maybe that's too extreme of an example, but it illustrates the point that the hedonist notion of good and bad is vastly ambiguous and can lead to undesirable situations, most notably in cases where people try to optimize for the afterlife, but also in varying degrees in other cases. so i think it ultimately it fails in practice as a moral philosophy.
I also think hedonism tends to stigmatize pain to an impractical degree. i think experiencing and accepting pain is an important part of life, not because it leads to greater pleasure, but because pain is a part of the human condition and there's value in observing it and recognizing its importance. in regards to art, there can't be catharsis without pain, so it doesn't make sense to me to say that pleasure is somehow better than pain in that sense. i think pain and pleasure are two sides of the same coin.
i don't know. maybe i'm just crazy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are presupposing a suicide bomber somehow had a bad life. I am rejecting that assumption and saying a swat team and the person their shooting could both have lived a great life. Following the rules of society results in lower friction, and is generally a net positive trade off. That does not mean it's always the correct path. After-all George Washington could easily have been shot as a traitor. It may seem the st…
No, I make no assumption about the the suicide bomber. I'm say he didn't do anything bad. He could kill thousands. Not bad. The reason is that "bad" is meaningless. There is no such thing as right or wrong in a materialistic view. Aesthetics doesn't get you there. If the bomber things that the death of thousands looks good, it is. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All worldviews start with assumptions. Secular materialism relies on circular arguments as much as Christianity, they just explain less (see Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton). The only difference is that materialists often refuse to admit their assumptions - which is why, as a Christian, I admire nihilists - they're not afraid to admit their axioms and follow them to their logical conclusions.
> Secular materialism relies on circular arguments as much as Christianity No, that's not true. See: http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/03/why-some-assumptions-are-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Secular materialism relies on circular arguments as much as Christianity No, that's not true. See: http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/03/why-some-assumptions-are-...
Really, only the last paragraph of that post are relevant here. Secular materialism and Christianits share reason in common. The difference between the two is their explanation of why it works, where it came from, and why it matters. That's where circularity starts to happen.
No. This is what a circular argument sounds like: "The Bible is the Word of God, and we know this because it says so in the Bible." There is nothing like that in secular materialism. Secular materialism is a conclusion based on evidence. It might be wrong but it is not circular.
And, BTW, if secular materialism is wrong, then the way to demonstrate that is to show evidence that it is wrong. And if you want to claim that secular materialism is circular then the way to show that is to show how it is circular (which you won't be able to do because it isn't) rather than just to say that it is with no supporting argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really, only the last paragraph of that post are relevant here. Secular materialism and Christianits share reason in common. The difference between the two is their explanation of why it works, where it came from, and why it matters. That's where circularity starts to happen.
> That's where circularity starts to happen. No. This is what a circular argument sounds like: "The Bible is the Word of God, and we know this because it says so in the Bible." There is nothing like that in secular materialism. Secular materialism is a conclusion based on evidence . It might be wrong but it is not circular . And, BTW, if secular materialism is wrong, then the way to demonstrate that is to show eviden…
No, its not. Secular materialism is an epistemology in which conclusions based on externally-verifiable empirical evidence are held to be the only justified claims of knowledge.
> And, BTW, if secular materialism is wrong, then the way to demonstrate that is to show evidence that it is wrong.
This rests itself on the assumption that secular materialism is correct (that is, it assumes tthat conclusions based on externally-verifiable empirical evidence are the only justified claims of knowledge.)
> And if you want to claim that secular materialism is circular then the way to show that is to show how it is circular
Secular materialism itself is not circular.
The claim that secular materialism is true because it is not shown to be wrong within the epistemological framework which secular materialism defines is, OTOH, circular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I contribute to my environment, I'm improving my own situation. Yes, but a truly selfish person could improve their personal situation much more effectively by pillaging the commons, since any contribution you make to the environment is shared, but any money you can put in your pocket is for you alone. The fact that you even think about the environment shows that you either don't have a easy way to profit from e…
Corporations with poor long term planning get weeded out and bought out all the time, even when they're among the most powerful in the world. It takes a global system of neoliberal economics intertwined with politics just to support the ones that do survive. Of course, we have a very limited frame of reference, as there are very few corporations even a few hundred years old, which in the very short span of human hist…
I think I was just trying to make a very narrow point, which is that our society does not actually perfectly align self interest with group interest, and so truly selfish agents would actually wreak havok.
You're saying it's possible to serve both at the same time, but purely selfish agents wouldn't care about that, which is why I don't think it's a good idea to encourage pure selfishness.
> The meaning of selfishness changes when a person sees the people and things around them as an essential part of themselves.
Yes, but that's generally not what people would hear if you tell them 'love yourself first'. Randian Objectivists seem like a bunch of selfish assholes to me :)
> For a perfect example of this, look at Soviet propaganda, always emphasizing sacrifice for the greater global workers' struggle.
It's human nature to look towards selfish interests first. It's completely natural that states, which need to mobilize people to work together, would urge otherwise.
The genius of modern capitalism is that it claims we can have our cake and eat it too -- look towards your own interests, and you will also benefit society. What people have forgotten is that is only true within a framework where capitalism is tightly constrained and controlled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Jesus is probably the most discussed/doubted/critiqued figure in history - certainly we've had more time to find out his flaws and the flaws of his followers than we have of science. And yet he hasn't been relegated to the dust heap of history like Baal and Thor. Well, to be fair, Jesus was the central figure of the religion of the people you're talking about and for a long time outing yourself as a non-believer wa…
While what you say is true to some extent for Western Christianity, the fact remains that Christianity has taken deep root in a number of places in the world that were free of western biases, e.g., China, Korea, Africa, and South America. A huge diversity of cultures have had their own struggles with Christianity.
Its just as true of Eastern Christianity.
> the fact remains that Christianity has taken deep root in a number of places in the world that were free of western biases, e.g., China, Korea, Africa, and South America.
All of those examples are largely a consequence of imperialism (largely, on the part of societies comprising Western Christendom.)
That's not to say that there aren't a few cases of durable Christian communities in regions (IIRC, particularly in the Middle East and East Africa, and some in South Asia) where they aren't a result of the heritage of ties between the common ancestor of modern Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christianity and the Roman empire, including those descendant churches ties to imperialist European states, these isolated communities are notable as exceptions within Christianity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's where circularity starts to happen. No. This is what a circular argument sounds like: "The Bible is the Word of God, and we know this because it says so in the Bible." There is nothing like that in secular materialism. Secular materialism is a conclusion based on evidence . It might be wrong but it is not circular . And, BTW, if secular materialism is wrong, then the way to demonstrate that is to show eviden…
> Secular materialism is a conclusion based on evidence. No, its not. Secular materialism is an epistemology in which conclusions based on externally-verifiable empirical evidence are held to be the only justified claims of knowledge. > And, BTW, if secular materialism is wrong, then the way to demonstrate that is to show evidence that it is wrong. This rests itself on the assumption that secular materialism is corre…
OK, but this is the claim I was responding to:
"Secular materialism relies on circular arguments as much as Christianity,"
> Secular materialism is an epistemology
No, it isn't. Secular materialism is "the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Secular+materialism) It is a falsifiable scientific theory.
> The claim that secular materialism is true because it is not shown to be wrong within the epistemological framework which secular materialism defines is, OTOH, circular.
But that's a straw man. You're right, that would be a circular argument, but that is not the claim that secular materialism makes.
You are confusing secular materialism with science. These are not the same thing. Science is a set of assumptions, including the assumption that any theory that is at odds with evidence must be wrong. Secular materialism is a conclusion that follows from those assumptions plus the currently available evidence. There is no circularity. Science does not assume secular materialism. Science readily takes on board the possibility that dualism might be correct, that deities might exist, even that Jesus may have died on the cross to save us from everlasting torment in the afterlife. All of these theories are rejected not because they contradict scientific assumptions (which would be circular) but because they are at odds with the evidence.
BTW, science does not claim that secular materialism is true. No scientific theory is ever true, merely the best available explanation at any point in time. Scientific theories are always subject to revision based on new evidence or better arguments. That's one of the big differences between science and religion: in science, the discovery and correction of mistakes is considered progress. In religion, it's heresy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Secular materialism is a conclusion based on evidence. No, its not. Secular materialism is an epistemology in which conclusions based on externally-verifiable empirical evidence are held to be the only justified claims of knowledge. > And, BTW, if secular materialism is wrong, then the way to demonstrate that is to show evidence that it is wrong. This rests itself on the assumption that secular materialism is corre…
> Secular materialism itself is not circular. OK, but this is the claim I was responding to: "Secular materialism relies on circular arguments as much as Christianity," > Secular materialism is an epistemology No, it isn't. Secular materialism is "the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenom…
No, its not. There's no conceivable empirical test that could refute it, even in principal.
> You are confusing secular materialism with science.
No, I'm not. Secular materialism and science are closely related but different. Science is a method for justifying knowledge, secular materialism is the belief that that method is the exclusive method for justifying knowledge.