Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

Pure Argent said:
So, in effect, it follows no laws.

And I'd still like to see where in that article it says that.



Nope, nothing there supports what you said.



...Or there.



...Or there.
You are confusing idealism, the philosophical stance, with idealism, the search for the ideal. That portion of the article is poorly written, but the two things are not the same, and if you have been speaking English for any length of time you know they are not the same.

And even if you were right, and they were the same thing, that still wouldn't support your contention that idealistic things do not have to obey any laws.
Click to expand...

Phew. I can still come up with a couple of definitions of idealism which did not come up on the wiki article.

I did not link it here. I think it is a badly written article.

Idealism has many different word meanings depending on the context.
Normally, one looks at idealism as an opposite to
-materialism
-pragmatism
-rationalism
-realism
-common sense

Now, to be quite honest and open with you, Your argumentation has zero value either way. It is dogbark and cowmoo.

You have not presented a single rational argument about what idealism IS you just go on babbling how everybody else is wrong.

Your arguments sketch a picture of a sorry creature who is trying to patch up the lack of education with wikipedia and Google search.

Please make my day and give me a reason to think otherwise.

Now can you please give me an example of a law an idealistic construct would have to follow that would have something else than a subjective statement or a social contract at its base.
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine

Now that's out of the way, I was looking forward to seeing you address the criticism of your argument.
Click to expand...

Sorry to let you down.
To me the argument just was so silly that I had to go dadaist.

For instance, we have a 20-member board of specialists looking at a Problem.

!8 do not see anything exceptional but there is one guy who starts to report and he is joined by another one.

Is the board now conscient of the problem? I would say so.

In the Universe we have I do not know how many different entities there are.
In the human being, there are quite a few as well.

Does man belong to Universe, is he a part of the Universe?
If he is conscious, little does it matter if mountains and trees of oceans are not. There is consciousness in the Universe. The universe is conscious.

I am NOT trying to present anything like the Gaia here.
Just sticking to the facts.

Now, then, if the human being is the only conscious creature who can understand laws of cause and effect and actually do something...
WTF doe he let this planet to become a junkyard?

There is no other conscience he could hide behind.
Nobody or nothing else could assume the responsibility.

There is no other consciousness than the human consciousness that could change something. The belief that there are Gaias or Gods are toxic to the planet.
 
Last edited:
1. A red box is part of the universe. The red box is red. Therefore, the universe is red.

Doesn't work, does it?
 
lemurien said:
3) My point of the consciousness in the Universe is that the only instance where it can be observed is the human consciousness. Man is a part of the Universe. He is conscious. Ergo, the universe is conscious.
Click to expand...
And that is exactly what I mean by a logical fallacy. It would make as much sense to say "Chlorine is part of salt. Chlorine is poisonous. Ergo, salt is poisonous." You need to abandon this particular line of reasoning because it is provably wrong.
 
Twiler said:
1. A red box is part of the universe. The red box is red. Therefore, the universe is red.

Doesn't work, does it?
Click to expand...

My guitar collection is a part of the universe therefore the universe is a guitar coll.......no,it doesn't work. Not in the real world.
 
lemurien said:
I have his Collected Works in my bookshelf and I have read it, yes.
He is a brilliant writer coming from a modest background which was a thing that the petrified snotty Brits could not accept.

I believe you brought him up for his wits rather than for his sexual preferences?
Click to expand...

You were wrong about Wilde and Jack Bruce. Consider the possibility that you could be wrong about other matters too.
 
punshhh said:
Well I am not presuming that there is anything to know. I am seeking truth, I may not find it, I think there is such a thing, along with a purpose.
Click to expand...
Let me illustrate what I mean. Suppose I am sitting at a table, and before me is a cup of water. Regardless of my state of knowledge, the "actual nature" of the water will always be in the cup, and my knowledge of it will always be a representation of it.

As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as knowing the actual nature of the water, outside of a simple correlation of a model of the water to its behaviors, because of the nature of knowledge itself; the only way to refer to the actual is to defer to it.

You are probably suffering under an illusion that "hard indivisible billiard balls" and "abstract notions" are conflicting, primitive, non-representational possible states of reality, for example. What I am trying to do is expose this illusion to you, hopefully by conveying that both are representation.

The real stuff is the representatED. It's in the cup.
 
punshhh said:
Yes your point is made and my point remains namely materialism and idealism are aspects of the appearance of existence, the tree. In mystic contemplation the nature of the wood is of concern.
Click to expand...

The nature of the wood is what can be observed, which leads back to empiricism or poetry.
 
punshhh said:
Well I am not presuming that there is anything to know. I am seeking truth, I may not find it, I think there is such a thing, along with a purpose.

I am not the sort of person who will accept a doctrine on existence without establishing the purpose of it and myself. Materialism is great, but does not answer these questions and it is these questions that I ask.
Click to expand...

Well again, there are some great functional defintions of purpose and meaning, other than poetry.

Who can wait quietly while the mud settles?
Who can remain still until the moment of action?
Observers of the Tao do not seek fulfilment.
Not seeking fulfillment, they are not swayed by desire for change.
Click to expand...
 
punshhh said:
Well if existence does not have a purpose, its up the creek without a paddle:D

Truth(as I am using it here) = the actual nature(and significance) of existence.

Due you think that the actual nature of existence is the world as described by materialism?
Click to expand...

Mu, I say moo as i wear my muumuu
 
punshhh said:
Well if existence does not have a purpose, its up the creek without a paddle:D

Truth(as I am using it here) = the actual nature(and significance) of existence.

Due you think that the actual nature of existence is the world as described by materialism?
Click to expand...
Still on the never ending quest for the bachelor's wife eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom