Really, I wasn't aware of that? And what pray tell was there before empiricism?
Baloney, just about everyone refers to "myth" as if it were fiction or an illusion.
Well, you may in fact be right here. Nonetheless, Apollo is alive and well and living in Science.
Re-read Merc's comment - you've misunderstood. He is saying that science arose from empiricism.
Again you have misunderstood Merc. He is not saying that myths are not fiction, however the definition of "myth" has a much broader definition then just "fiction". For instance if I was to use it in a discussion what I would be meaning is something like: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often explaining the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behaviour… or …snip.. a character, story, theme, or object that embodies a particular idea or aspect of a culture (taken from Encarta).
If you wish to have a discussion it really would be useful if you could provide definitions for what you mean by “myth” and “science”.
And would you care to venture a guess as to what he meant by "rationalism/empiricism split?"
Oh, I understand this full well. However, that which defines these terms, "a mind," by most accounts (at least according to Mercutio) is a fiction.
Yes, and how do we know that these heros and supernatural beings didn't exist? Is it based in fact? ... Or, fiction?
What, aside from the fact that they are pretty much one and the same, as I have suggested?
And how do you define "fiction"
If you have a genuine desire to have a discussion can't you see that we need to be clear about what we mean?
Please provide a definition of what you mean when you use the term "myth" and "science" in this thread.
That which is fanciful and generally untrue. Would you have me define these two terms as well?
What, provided that we assume an external reality exists? If so, then I would abide by the definitions in the dictionary. If not, then we have to ask by what means is the dictionary "non-fictional?"
LOL...once again, your broad definitions are useless. If empiricism began as a reaction to rationalism, in broad disagreement with it, does this still qualify as "arising from rationalism"?
But not the reverse. Not everyone refers to fiction or illusion as "myth". Which is what you are doing here.
eta: And what is especially funny is that the quintessential parts of a Myth, as opposed to other fictions, you are denying when you claim (for example) that the Greek gods are real.
Yes.
Really? And which "facts" are those?
Yes, but how will you know?
Oh, I agree, an external reality is quite believable. However, at what point does it not become a belief? Especially since it cannot be believed once you die.
Only if it could speak to me as if it were me, which it can't.
And, once we establish the empirical facts, by what means do we use to describe them?
Neither do I. In fact I see myths as being potentially true.
Depends on whether you're looking at it from Mt. Olympus or down here on earth.
Please note that the statement you agree with does not in any way whatsoever support your opening contention that science is a myth. That idea has pretty much been dismissed; all that remains is to watch you try to squirm your way into claiming you were not wrong. Same dance, different thread.
Oh, that's right. I forgot that you are actually a Greek god.
If the gods are real, then what does this tell us about the origins of Science?
Jesus
Demon in Disguise
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2004
- Messages
- 476
Wow, you are the most amazing spinner of useless words ever. You use so much prose to say so little.
Again, my question: If our external reality is a fake, then why do most people (by most, I mean nearly everyone, except perhaps the insane) perceive things in the same way? If reality was simply confined to our own consciousness, shouldn't the world be appreciably different for each person, especially considering how diverse humans are?
Yet people still suffer the laws of physics, among other natural laws and phenomena, regardless of whether they are American, African, Asian, European, Australian, or anywhere in between.
I think what Iacchus is trying to say is that, while there possibly could be a universe, the only way we can ever possibly know it is through our senses. What a revelation that is.
The only difference is that he seems to think this invalidates everything we have ever learned.Only if you can prove to me that Science is not a fiction and, that the external world does exist.
Last edited:
I need not prove the first, as you obviously do not understand science. As to the second, well, just read Jesus' post above.
I never said it wasn't. I'm saying we really have no means by which to verify that it is ... outside of the "cirularity" of our own thinking that is. And there you have it, we are all legends in our own minds.
