kuonphobos's forum posts

#1 Posted by kuonphobos (5107 posts) - - Show Bio

@nick_hero22: "assumptions are unique to systems of knowledge, and philosophy isn't a system of knowledge."

Wouldn't you agree that even philosophy assumes that:

1) man is capable of perceiving phenomena

2) and is also capable of creating/perceiving symbols

3) and is capable of creating symbolic categories such as mathematics, logic and language?

Or are you speaking/thinking of something else when you use the term "philosophy"?

#2 Posted by kuonphobos (5107 posts) - - Show Bio

@kuonphobos: hmm, keep them separate and move the non-Fables stuff over to Dimensional Travel and come up with some aliases so people can figure out which to use.

OK

I transferred non-Fables associations to dimensional travel.

I re-wrote descriptions to better emphasize each concept (hopefully). Please check to see if OK.

I would like to suggest "Crossing Dimensions" because that would remove the emphasis upon sci-fi implicit in "Dimensional Travel"

Also I would suggest "Homeland Gateway" or "Gateways Between Homelands" for "magical gateways" in order to focus upon the Fables U and not have a confusing generic term as "magical gateways" Homelands already exists and is currently linked to "magical gateways".

#3 Edited by kuonphobos (5107 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

@kuonphobos said:

@nick_hero22: @willpayton

I witnessed your previous discussion (the recent one) concerning this issue you are hashing out but I honestly don't understand this dichotomy between science and philosophy you seem to have created.

Aren't science, philosophy and theology simply different methods for looking at the world and various phenomena? Each posits a different set of a priori assumptions about the nature of reality, but each is also a part of the overall quest of humankind to attempt to comprehend it's reality.

Seems like nitpicking to me.

It would indeed be nitpicking if the assumptions we're talking about were trivial or insignificant to the understanding of the nature of reality that each philosophy seeks to achieve.

One could characterize each like this:

(pure) philosophy: makes a minimal set of assumptions, does not concern itself with observations

science: makes a minimal set of assumptions, requires observations

religion: assumes what it likes, observations are irrelevant

As you can see I wrote "(pure) philosophy" because science also a type of philosophy.

The argument between philosophy and science came when the claim was made the philosophy does not make any assumptions. I demonstrated that it does.

The argument between religion and science usually comes when religion tries to pass assumptions as evidence, and claims that it's assumptions are equally valid as those of science. They're not. Science makes only the minimal set of assumptions required to proceed. Without those you cant get anywhere. But, if you make unfounded assumptions then you can easily end up deluding yourself into believing things that are not true.

First, I would like to point out that I disagree with your characterization of religion. It is a terrible generalization. While I agree that your point is true far to often it is not patently true and any claim that it is is not defensible. Religion (theology for my purposes) is based upon a non scientific observations, namely history. History is not nearly as "hard" as other observable science but it is also not the same as "assumes what it likes" and observations are certainly not irrelevant. It is the assumptions about the revelation in history which lead to the various religious iterations as well as the various denominations within specific religious systems.

But I'm sure we won't agree on any of that.

But back to my point. I agree with the delineations you have made but I ask again (basically same question but in a different form) why the need to make any dichotomy? The way I deal with it is to recognize the value in each and create a mental system which recognizes the strengths and weakness of each set of assumptions and attempts to synthesize the perspectives of each where it is possible and hold the divergent perspectives in tension when synthesis is not possible.

It goes back to that old metaphor/heuristic regarding the blind men and the elephant. Science is indeed brilliant for the minimal set of assumptions and the scientific method, etc. But it is potentially limited in it's ability to see all possibilities by it's assumptions of materialism. Theology emerges from historical observation, which is certainly much less dependable than scientific observation, but it at least opens the door to the possibilities which science might be too blinded by it's assumptions to see, simply because it rules out those possibilities a priori thus potentially skewing it's observations.

And your statement about (pure) philosophy is understandable but personally I don't value such mental exercises that can be found in (pure) philosophy. They smack as "Ivory Tower" and "out of touch", so for me when I consider philosophy it is always earth bound and requires observation so basically I really make no major differentiation between science and philosophy. If anything it is a father (philosophy) to son (science) relationship with science having a slightly different set of assumptions and goals.

#4 Posted by kuonphobos (5107 posts) - - Show Bio

They are remarkably similar.

#5 Posted by kuonphobos (5107 posts) - - Show Bio

No. It never made any sense to me.

#6 Posted by kuonphobos (5107 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes.

But I think the war element is part of a much deeper element of competition. Our economy (capitalism) is based upon competition as is our sports culture. What Americans seem to value most is individualism, freedom and success as a validation of hard work.

#7 Posted by kuonphobos (5107 posts) - - Show Bio

Looking for a good conversation to give me some much needed distraction.

#8 Posted by kuonphobos (5107 posts) - - Show Bio

One Of My Favorite Film Scenes...

Denzel Washington is one of my favorite actors.

This scene has no teeth (in my experience at least) and for me becomes a straw man argument. I have never met or read a serious evangelical scholar or serious evangelical student or evangelical parishioner who held to the belief that Jesus Christ was white (Caucasian, WASP).

Sure some have held that position. But the tradition I grew up within lampoons such thinking. I have personally only encountered it once. It was is a class in seminary and the student insisted upon the perspective that Jesus was white. After the professor and several students (including myself) took turns dismantling his position, he sat quietly for the remainder of the semester.

So my point is that every evangelical I have known (and I have known many) would have taken Malcolm X's position in this scenario.

#9 Posted by kuonphobos (5107 posts) - - Show Bio

@nick_hero22: @willpayton

I witnessed your previous discussion (the recent one) concerning this issue you are hashing out but I honestly don't understand this dichotomy between science and philosophy you seem to have created.

Aren't science, philosophy and theology simply different methods for looking at the world and various phenomena? Each posits a different set of a priori assumptions about the nature of reality, but each is also a part of the overall quest of humankind to attempt to comprehend it's reality.

Seems like nitpicking to me.

#10 Posted by kuonphobos (5107 posts) - - Show Bio

Jaguar God issues 0-4 now have improved cover images. Please delete the older ones.

Thanks.