Christian Atheists

[BaalChatzaf]

So one finds the term "metaphysics" as referring to "pertaining to reality", side by side with its precise opposite: "the supernatural, the spiritual".

Contradictions like the above are the reason why I steer clear of the term.

You see a lot of that in the bookstores.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

So one finds the term "metaphysics" as referring to "pertaining to reality", side by side with its precise opposite: "the supernatural, the spiritual".

Contradictions like the above are the reason why I steer clear of the term.

You see a lot of that in the bookstores.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It drives me up the wall to see in the 'Philosophy' sections, mostly religious tracts

and New Age piffle.

[Xray]

Metaphysics is clearly understood respecting Objectivism and it couldn't be simpler or more basic. Epistemology is more than the study of knowledge. The supposition that knowledge is basic unto itself is circular, cutting out reality (metaphysics). That's when you get Bob's "word salad." Of course that's not quite what is going on here, which is stealing metaphysics while denying the crime.

It is not a case of stealing: it is more like deciding not to put on - figuratively speaking - an old and tattered garment anymore.

[Brant Gaede]

Metaphysics is clearly understood respecting Objectivism and it couldn't be simpler or more basic. Epistemology is more than the study of knowledge. The supposition that knowledge is basic unto itself is circular, cutting out reality (metaphysics). That's when you get Bob's "word salad." Of course that's not quite what is going on here, which is stealing metaphysics while denying the crime.

It is not a case of stealing: it is more like deciding not to put on - figuratively speaking - an old and tattered garment anymore.

Those are sexy outfits.

--Brant

ask Daisy Mae

[anthony]

The supposition that knowledge is basic unto itself is circular, cutting out reality (metaphysics).

--Brant

Brilliantly simple. It took me pages to try to say this, and fall short.

It also implicitly supposes that knowledge is static essentially the same way collectivists suppose wealth is static. They also chuck reality. They chuck creation and those that create knowledge and wealth. Thus the creators get eaten alive or aborted.

--Brant

The supposition that knowledge is basic unto itself is circular, cutting out reality (metaphysics).

--Brant

Brilliantly simple. It took me pages to try to say this, and fall short.

It also implicitly supposes that knowledge is static essentially the same way collectivists suppose wealth is static. They also chuck reality. They chuck creation and those that create knowledge and wealth. Thus the creators get eaten alive or aborted.

--Brant

Nice tie-in from knowledge to wealth.

"The implicit, but unadmitted premise of the neo-mystics [skeptics/intrinsicists]

of modern philosophy, is the notion that only an ineffable consciousness can acquire a valid knowledge of reality, that "true" knowledge has to be causeless, i.e., acquired without any means of cognition." [Consciousness and Identity - ITOE]

All the knowledge held 'out there' in all the libraries, is useless, until each person

learns how to access his own consciousness and effortfully integrate it into his mind

through conceptualization.

Or else, it's just a collectivist wet dream.

I think it is metaphysical as well as epistemological, that the "neo-mystic" sees

both wealth and knowledge as a metaphysical "given" - like the air he breathes -

handed down by God, government or science.

[anthony]

Xray,

(Not too much about 'secular ethics' yet, but I'm sure you have more.)

There's more to come, yes.

I only wanted to refute any claims and tenets by a non-secular ethics as epistemologically uncceptable first, so that we can fully concentrate on secular ethics.

Reading your post, it strikes me that you are trapped like a ping-pong ball,

bouncing between logical empiricism (which you call epistemology) and religion.

Eliminate religion from your mind, first, is my best advice. The more energy you

expend criticising it, the more credence you allow it in your own mind, and the

less independently you can think.

See above. The energy spent on non-secular ethics was for refutation purposes.

For logic to have any overwhelming strength (over mysticism for example), it should be expanded to true epistemology which incorporates much, much more than logic - the building of ever heightening concepts. Logic is relatively easy (at least, one's

conclusions are evidently true/false immediately) but the rest takes extended effort.

My focus is not that much on logical operations because one can make all kinds of (factually wrong) 'logical' conclusions from false premises.

The challenge therefore lies in examining the premises.

Second, O'ist epistemology is not as you stated it ("What can we know...") but this instead: "What do I know, and how do I know it? It is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the 'How?' Which then enables the special sciences to provide the answer to the 'What'".[AR]

The "What can I know" is from Kant.

Since epistemology is the study of knowledge, I often use the term in philosophical discussions when the focus is on known facts (as opposed, for example, to moral demands).

Again, I feel you are taking the empirical/scientific stance, not the philosophical.

My frequent stressing of the empirical and the scientific is grounded in the firm convction that no contemporary philosophy can afford to disregard the results of scientific research. The last thing I would want for philosophy is to be in an Ivory Tower.

More importantly, epistemology certainly does NOT come first as base for morality.

But how can one justify a moral decision without recurring to.what we know about human nature?

If "What do I know?" is the sum total of Kantian epistemology, it high-lights how

subjectivist he was.

"How do I know?"- is the root of the theory of knowledge (O'ist epistemology).

"What do I know"- follows it, as the role of the sciences.

That "firm conviction that no contemporary philosophy can afford to disregard the results

of scientific research" derives from subjectivism: the conviction that metaphysical reality is in

a state of flux - simply because man continually discovers more about it.

(Primacy of consciousness.)

A philosophy dependent upon science is no philosophy at all, or a false philosophy.

[Brant Gaede]

Xray,

(Not too much about 'secular ethics' yet, but I'm sure you have more.)

There's more to come, yes.

I only wanted to refute any claims and tenets by a non-secular ethics as epistemologically uncceptable first, so that we can fully concentrate on secular ethics.

Reading your post, it strikes me that you are trapped like a ping-pong ball,

bouncing between logical empiricism (which you call epistemology) and religion.

Eliminate religion from your mind, first, is my best advice. The more energy you

expend criticising it, the more credence you allow it in your own mind, and the

less independently you can think.

See above. The energy spent on non-secular ethics was for refutation purposes.

For logic to have any overwhelming strength (over mysticism for example), it should be expanded to true epistemology which incorporates much, much more than logic - the building of ever heightening concepts. Logic is relatively easy (at least, one's

conclusions are evidently true/false immediately) but the rest takes extended effort.

My focus is not that much on logical operations because one can make all kinds of (factually wrong) 'logical' conclusions from false premises.

The challenge therefore lies in examining the premises.

Second, O'ist epistemology is not as you stated it ("What can we know...") but this instead: "What do I know, and how do I know it? It is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the 'How?' Which then enables the special sciences to provide the answer to the 'What'".[AR]

The "What can I know" is from Kant.

Since epistemology is the study of knowledge, I often use the term in philosophical discussions when the focus is on known facts (as opposed, for example, to moral demands).

Again, I feel you are taking the empirical/scientific stance, not the philosophical.

My frequent stressing of the empirical and the scientific is grounded in the firm convction that no contemporary philosophy can afford to disregard the results of scientific research. The last thing I would want for philosophy is to be in an Ivory Tower.

More importantly, epistemology certainly does NOT come first as base for morality.

But how can one justify a moral decision without recurring to.what we know about human nature?

If "What do I know?" is the sum total of Kantian epistemology, it high-lights how

subjectivist he was.

"How do I know?"- is the root of the theory of knowledge (O'ist epistemology).

"What do I know"- follows it, as the role of the sciences.

That "firm conviction that no contemporary philosophy can afford to disregard the results

of scientific research" derives from subjectivism: the conviction that metaphysical reality is in

a state of flux - simply because man continually discovers more about it.

(Primacy of consciousness.)

A philosophy dependent upon science is no philosophy at all, or a false philosophy.

Science is dependent on philosophy or there would be no scientific method. However, science confirms through its investigations its philosophical roots. This is why it's desirable for a good liberal arts education to include science properly taught respecting basic scientific knowledge and principles. When the math seriously kicks in the student can go back to his philosophy classroom.

--Brant

[anthony]

Brant, I am sure you appreciate that in dismissing the "philosophy relies on science" hypothesis, I am by no means putting philosophy in an "ivory tower." Reality and facts are the sole arbiter, so the discoveries of science should be kept finely in tune with.

But it would be almost redundant to point out that any new fact that could completely overturn an objective philosophical principle - tried and tested over millenia, then perceived, induced, deduced, empiricized and conceptualized by our individual minds - would have to be earth-shattering in magnitude. (The discovery of a parallel universe, for one; that all life is supernaturally inter-connected, another; that our lives are fully pre-determined, another.)

In the mean time , we go on with what we know:- that existence exists independently of man, and is 'knowable'; that each man exists independently (in essence) of another; and that we possess volition.

(Preaching to the choir to make my intention clear).

[Mikee]

When the math seriously kicks in the student can go back to his philosophy classroom.

--Brant

Is this another way of saying "when the would be scientist reaches his level of incompetence he turns to philosophy"?

[Xray]

It drives me up the wall to see in the 'Philosophy' sections, mostly religious tracts

Might be a residue of ancient "Philosophia ancilla theologiae" thinking ...

[Xray]

But, if you "steer clear" of metaphysics, you can't have a philosophy (or an ethics.)

I steer clear of the term metaphysics, i. e. I avoid using this squishy term whose gamut of meanings includes total opposites ("pertaining to reality" vs. "supernatural").

'Rand's meaning' of metaphysical is: "pertaining to reality, to existence "- imo it is much clearer using these paraphrases than 'metaphysics'.

Man's fundamental nature - objectively - isn't acceptable to them because of how the

But can't man's fundamental nature be discussed in detail without using "metaphysical"? The term is mostly redundant imo.

Or do you see any difference between "man's fundamental nature" and "man's metaphysical [in Rand's meaning] nature"?

So Rand was right, that the intrinsicist (mystical), and the Skeptic are one and the same, essentially. Only the name of the 'authority' changes: god -> science; religion -> collectivism.

Following from that, is your conviction that concepts coined in "a pre-scientific age"

are moot, because, you indicate, science has refuted them. This is a clear Skeptical position - that there exist no absolutes.

When science has refuted something, we are not dealing with skepticism, but with facts.

As I observed in that thread, philo-skeptics can never seem to grasp that man's basic characteristics and identity is unchanging, for all time.

(Necessitating a continual mutation Skeptics would like to apply to his moral codes.)

Since Evolution is an ongoing process, nothing that is evolving can remain unchanged for all time.

[Brant Gaede]

It drives me up the wall to see in the 'Philosophy' sections, mostly religious tracts

Might be a residue of ancient "Philosophia ancilla theologiae" thinking ...

Not my quotation.

--Brant

it's WhYNOT's

[anthony]

But, if you "steer clear" of metaphysics, you can't have a philosophy (or an ethics.)

I steer clear of the term metaphysics, i. e. I avoid using this squishy term whose gamut of meanings includes total opposites ("pertaining to reality" vs. "supernatural").

'Rand's meaning' of metaphysical is: "pertaining to reality, to existence "- imo it is much clearer using these paraphrases than 'metaphysics'.

Man's fundamental nature - objectively - isn't acceptable to them because of how the

But can't man's fundamental nature be discussed in detail without using "metaphysical"? The term is mostly redundant imo.

Or do you see any difference between "man's fundamental nature" and "man's metaphysical [in Rand's meaning] nature"?

So Rand was right, that the intrinsicist (mystical), and the Skeptic are one and the same, essentially. Only the name of the 'authority' changes: god -> science; religion -> collectivism.

Following from that, is your conviction that concepts coined in "a pre-scientific age"

are moot, because, you indicate, science has refuted them. This is a clear Skeptical position - that there exist no absolutes.

When science has refuted something, we are not dealing with skepticism, but with facts.

As I observed in that thread, philo-skeptics can never seem to grasp that man's basic characteristics and identity is unchanging, for all time.

(Necessitating a continual mutation Skeptics would like to apply to his moral codes.)

Since Evolution is an ongoing process, nothing that is evolving can remain unchanged for all time.

Afraid "metaphysics", it stays. There's only one meaning when talking philosophy.

.

What evolution have you noticed in man's nature in the last 1000 (!0,000) years?

How much do you expect in the next 10,000?

Or, do you still not understand "the metaphysical nature of Man"?

I think the refusal to think hierarchically is - along with primacy of

consciousness - the core characteristic of a skeptic.

[Brant Gaede]

You don't learn much by saying it's metaphysical or epistemological. Basically these are categories used for clear thinking. When we say man's metaphysical nature is unchangeable we belie the fact that everything changes by using a general concept in lieu of that basic fact. Then we can argue "Yeah, but," "Yeah, but," yadda, yadda, yadda. Man's nature is what it is as long as it is whatever it is we are talking about respecting the particular nature of his nature.

--Brant

then came woman--go ahead, figure her out

[Xray]

Afraid "metaphysics", it stays. There's only one meaning when talking philosophy.

Actually there is not only one meaning of metaphysics when talking philosophy:

From The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on metaphysics:

http://plato.stanfor...es/metaphysics/

The word ‘metaphysics’ is notoriously hard to define.

What evolution have you noticed in man's nature in the last 1000 (!0,000) years?

How much do you expect in the next 10,000?

In your # 25 post, you wrote "man's basic characteristics and identity is unchanging, for all time", but now you have narrowed it down considerably.

How much do you expect in the next 10,000?

So much change that we, were it possible for us to get glimpse of that new world, would probably feel like our primitive ancestors would feel if placed in today's world.

Just think of what genetic engineeering, a product of cultural evolution, may make possible ...

Or, do you still not understand "the metaphysical nature of Man"?

I suggest testing whether one can use Occam's Razor and shave off 'metaphysical' without altering the message.

So what exactly is the difference between "man's nature" and "man's metaphysical nature"?

[Xray]

It drives me up the wall to see in the 'Philosophy' sections, mostly religious tracts

Might be a residue of ancient "Philosophia ancilla theologiae" thinking ...

Not my quotation.

--Brant

it's WhYNOT's

My mistake, sorry.

Epistemology is more than the study of knowledge. The supposition that knowledge is basic unto itself is circular, cutting out reality (metaphysics).

Epistemology is basic for philosophy in our scientific age because it deals with knowledge, and knowledge is about facts.

Knowledge is not "basic unto itself", but related to facts, to reality.

Brant/Tony,

In trying to etablish a secular ethics, could we agree on the common denominator that basic facts about man's nature (as it presents itself today) are absolutely essential criteria?

If yes, with what basic facts about man's nature would it be best to begin?

[Brant Gaede]

Sure, free will and rationality. There is no need to say, "complex life form." Social being, but it's an individual being social. It's an individual doing the thinking. It's the individual who's the moral agent. Etc.

--Brant

[Xray]

What you call secular ethics - by which I know by now, you mean a variation of collectivist/statism - will never, ever leave one alone until it has killed off the human spirit. I despise it as much as you despise religion, and more.

Could it be that the aversion you seem to have against the term "secular ethics" has its roots in your detestation for communism which also has a secular (= non-religious) ethics, and that this negatively taints your attitude toward other possible forms of secular ethics?

[anthony]

What you call secular ethics - by which I know by now, you mean a variation of collectivist/statism - will never, ever leave one alone until it has killed off the human spirit. I despise it as much as you despise religion, and more.

Could it be that the aversion you seem to have against the term "secular ethics" has its roots in your detestation for communism which also has a secular (= non-religious) ethics, and that this negatively taints your attitude toward other possible forms of secular ethics?

If anything, it's quite the reverse. I detest communism - not that I explicitly voiced

it here - because of its collectivist premises, first and foremost.

That's the thing about 'secularism', and its ethics, what does it mean?

It is a non-phrase for an ideology that might be 'good', but also might conceal all kinds of 'evils', don't you think?

(I doubt it espouses the individualist morality, but I'll try to keep an open mind

until you outline your take on it.)

[Brant Gaede]

I've never thought of the Objectivist Ethics as "secular" if for no other reason than redundancy. Same with "atheist." For me ethics are religious, not, or a combo of the two. Explicitly, Objectivism excludes the religious. The problem is the heroes of Atlas Shrugged are in some ways conventional human heroes who are willing to fight to the death for their idea of right vs wrong or even give up Dagny until she sees the light--and when she does, Frisco and Hank lose out to John. The whole structure of the novel hinges on Rand's misunderstanding or mischaracterizing of male sexuality. Frisco and John might as well be spinsters for most of it. The idea that Frisco would give up Dagny to save the world with John and Ragnar is literally ludicrous, but for this to be made right and better depicted and there would be no novel at all.

--Brant

it cannot be significantly improved and hands off the rest of it

[GALTGULCH8]

As a psychiatrist in a correctional setting to which many young men are sent for evaluations and treatment I have had the opportunity from time to time to talk with relatively sane young men who are troubled in part by some mistaken belief, e.g. a belief that the voice(s) in their heads are caused by Demons.

I find that it is important in all cases to have established some degree of rapport so that I am seen by them as being on their side have earned their trust, am seen as at least as intelligent as they are, and do not pose a threat to them.

Some of them have been raised in a home in which their parent(s) have instilled in them a belief in such things as Demons and of which they are terrified in the context of a worldview which includes a Hell and an unattainable Heaven.

An officious, pedantic approach would certainly be counter productive.

There is also precious little time given the numbers of patients, reams of paperwork, documentation, limited access as patients must be patted down before they can be seen and officers are busy with their responsibilities, competition for the few rooms given so many social workers, forensic evaluators who need to see the patients in addition to the assigned psychiatrist.

There is a library which has a beaten up copy of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead and used to have Philosophy: Who Needs It? until a patient tore out most of the pages.

It is not as bad as the gulags around the world yet.

The focus for psychiatrists is on establishing a diagnosis, prescribing medication and monitoring its effects rather than "psychotherapy." Some days are tied up in Court to testify that someone is not competent to make medical decisions regarding treatment of his psychiatric illness.

Reality abounds. Ethics comes up. I ask a fellow why he got into a fight with another patient and he tells me that the other guy called him a name overheard by many other patients. He said they were fighting words and given that he has to live for months to come among those who heard the name calling he had to strike out or suffer being labelled a woos and an easy target for his canteen if he didn't.

That justifiable fight leads to a potential patient who is bright enough to learn perhaps how to check his premises will be taken into seclusion and then onto a maximum security unit beyond my reach.

But once in a while an opportunity does arise and Objectivist ideas are powerful and life changing.

[Brant Gaede]

Demons in the head will likely be exacerbated by methamphetamine addiction. It takes 5-7 days for most of that to wash out with abstinence, likely leaving the craving for more meth intact or even magnified.

--Brant

[Xray]

That's the thing about 'secularism', and its ethics, what does it mean?

It is a non-phrase for an ideology that might be 'good', but also might conceal all kinds of 'evils', don't you think?

(I doubt it espouses the individualist morality, but I'll try to keep an open mind

until you outline your take on it.)

Secular ethics simply means an ethics not based on religious beliefs in a deity or in other tenets involving the supernatural, like e. g. the reincarnation idea.The Objectivist ethics for example is a secular ethics.

The origin of the term secular is from Latin "secularis" ('worldly').

There exist all kinds of secular ethics, but what they all have in common is the rejection of the idea that religious beliefs in 'unworldly agents' like e. g. a deity can provide the basis for an ethics.

[Brant Gaede]

That's the thing about 'secularism', and its ethics, what does it mean?

It is a non-phrase for an ideology that might be 'good', but also might conceal all kinds of 'evils', don't you think?

(I doubt it espouses the individualist morality, but I'll try to keep an open mind

until you outline your take on it.)

Secular ethics simply means an ethics not based on religious beliefs in a deity or in other tenets involving the supernatural, like e. g. the reincarnation idea.The Objectivist ethics for example is a secular ethics.

The origin of the term secular is from Latin "secularis" ('worldly').

There exist all kinds of secular ethics, but what they all have in common is the rejection of the idea that religious beliefs in 'unworldly agents' like e. g. a deity can provide the basis for an ethics.

If "God" is used metaphorically it's a secular ethics, especially if it's for secular application. In this one sense all ethics are secular.

--Brant

worthless add on

[anthony]

That's the thing about 'secularism', and its ethics, what does it mean?

It is a non-phrase for an ideology that might be 'good', but also might conceal all kinds of 'evils', don't you think?

(I doubt it espouses the individualist morality, but I'll try to keep an open mind

until you outline your take on it.)

Secular ethics simply means an ethics not based on religious beliefs in a deity or in other tenets involving the supernatural, like e. g. the reincarnation idea.The Objectivist ethics for example is a secular ethics.

The origin of the term secular is from Latin "secularis" ('worldly').

There exist all kinds of secular ethics, but what they all have in common is the rejection of the idea that religious beliefs in 'unworldly agents' like e. g. a deity can provide the basis for an ethics.

Xray, indeed. Two perfectly understandable and objectve words, that put together say - nothing and everything.

"Secular ethics" is vague and subjective, and I believe deliberately ambiguous - coined to indicate that the user is smart enough to not be a 'believer', and 'good' enough to hold a morality, but also ironic enough not to take it seriously.

Ordinary post-modernism, if you ask me:

"If I have to explain it for you, then you could never understand."

Could it be THE ethics for Skeptics?

("If you want to know the price, you can't afford it.")