Modernists of YouTube

[Zantorc]

At least one reason for the continuing debate between atheists and theists is the undue influence which theists have on politics in the US. The US is nothing like the UK or Europe in this regard. You can't get elected unless you profess religious belief. So I'm in favour of anything which undermines theistic influence - someone has to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

However I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.

[sarahj666666]

@denito (cont)

And then it does affect us.

How can we deal with the fact, that the probably most threatening danger of these days is due to a religious conflict ? Even if these are just misguided people, useful idiots so to speak, the only way to deal with it is by refuting the religion argument. Cause religion is based on unquestioning rulers, so religious people are perfect "useful idiots" to demagogues.

So I think, everyone should at least comment on stupid ideas and add a bit of reason.

[sarahj666666]

@denito

you are absolutely right - it is a waste of time to discuss such childish naive beliefs and we really do have other problems to solve on earth at the moment. However, many educated (scientists, but not limited to) seem to therefore leave the field and give it to the populistic idiots, who know how to feed the masses with religious opium. And then they make the rules. And then they start to educate our kids, tell us to shut up or even start wars in the name of their imagined god. (cont)

[ArcaneInquisitor]

All I want to say here is that you can waste time debating this, I don't care.

But perhaps it might help to lay out some definitions here for everyone.

First, evolution is a fact, it is the mechanism which is a theory. Second, people seem to give little credit to what a theory is. It is not just an idea.

For something to be called a theory it requires ample evidence. To be a law requires an undeniable validity in reality. Most things in science, even if very correct ,are still theories.

[zuluhootchie]

would we agree to say then that evolution is a Religion taught in schools? its a theory that is not proven yet...

[sarahj666666]

@zuluhootchie

sorry, but I must ask you to look for and read the definition of what a "theory" is in science. I continue to read phrases like "but it is JUST a theory - not a fact". This word is used with two meanings and you seem to be referring to the colloquial, almost slang and non-educated meaning here. A "theory" is as far as you can get, and evolution seems to me as one of the more proven ones. For instance, compared to (say) string theory, evolution IS to be considered a proven fact.

[josephwilliampeach]

Religion remains relevant to many people, and religions have enormous political power. Atheism may be standard in certain academic groupings, but reigion requires debate, because the religious are not a trivial minority.

[ineptgod]

Reasoning and human reason are not the same

Atheists and theists (myself) have the same fetish: satisfying a knee-jerk (often mutual)

I believe in the god of questions and my recreation is observation

[theCommenteer]

Postmodernism is so 1930's! Can't we talk about Britney?

[nicolaslevine]

So true! Britney deserves our atention.

[mtheoryrules]

Thats a dangerous statement, those people with power simply hand it over to others.

Thats what it amounts to, the problem I see with these issue is that many seem to think that emotions and reason are seperate, as if the mind uses different parts of the brain or different chemicals to realize either of the experiences.

They start in the mind as does all reality, one is not more or less valid than the other.

[papi0600]

As Huntington said;

"In coping with identity crisis, what counts for people are blood and belief, faith and family. People rally to those with similar ancestry, religion, values, institutions, and difference themselves from those with different ones"

[MENCADO]

Ego lives.

[MENCADO]

P.S. - I meant that as an answer to your question.

[chelsearen23]

it sucks i cant post more then 500 charactors. i just want to say that my opinion is no where near rounded enough to satisfy even myself, but hopefully by the time im 21 ill have a more well-versed responce to some of these videos.

:)

[chelsearen23]

one the other hand aithiests, ive always found seem equally set on converting those who are religious because in their eyes its a primative "fairy tale" (actually, you said that) what i find frustrating is everyone's lack of understanding. my focus has become connectivity in people, that we draw imaginary lines between each other see ourselves as seperate "machanical" parts, which to me, is primative. we cant blaim the religious, or glorify the athiests, or see them as seperate at all really..

[denito9474]

yes. La Grande Illusion = borders

[chelsearen23]

anyway, it comes i think, from the human race's search for answers and those who have found those answers in god or religion are going to stand strongly behand them and take a narrow minded approach because to them, it was religion that brought them peace of mind, or answers, and through a faith-based point of view, they would be insanely protective of that considering the alternative to them would be square one.

[Ruaness]

You cant be more right

[chelsearen23]

i think it comes down to this, being a catholic and being raised very much catholic, although ive never been a practicing one, ive just now opened my mind to the concept of "beyond jesus" now i was never a bible banger or anything like that, my religious ways were deeper and more.. tho this is kind of an oxi-moron, logical.

[chelsearen23]

yes i have noticed this, not on youtube exactly but EVERYWHERE. first, i apologize for any mis-spelling or gramatical error, or ignorence on certain subject because im not a good student and i have alot of trouble reading(which is what brings me here) i generally excell in discussion, so spare me the critism.

[EducatedMediator]

I disagree with this video because, the fact is, there are more theists than atheists in this world. Pick any country... any city..

[denito9474]

My complaint is that there are so many people putting forward the modernist argument of objectivity, science to solve everything, the march of truth, the progress of reason, etc. I'm not sure I understand your point, what does that have to do with the ratio of theists to atheists?

[HaleyMary]

I liked when you asked why waste time arguing. I think arguing will get people nowhere in life and that we should all agree to disagree and try to live peacefully in society. I do see the religion being replaced by consumerism in society. I can't walk into a bookstore without seeing a book on cosmology and quantum theory. Knowledge is great to learn, but people don't need to buy books, they can go to a library if they want to read about it.

Peace. :)

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

You state rationalism, objectivity, and progress are dead, but do not explain why you think so.

[denito9474]

My aim is not to provide an argument as to why they are dead, if you think they are still alive, good luck to you. Mine is an appeal to those students of history and/or philosophy who would agree that they died long ago, to see if they can shed light on the question of why so many people don't share this view.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

I just want to know your view, that's all. I can only assume you don't have arguments for your claims.

[denito9474]

That's an interesting assumption. The arguments that are being put forward by many here on youtube are almost exactly the same as those of many enlightenment thinkers. These include advocating an escape from the false dogmas of religion and to allow everyone to use reason. Rationality was to become the highest value in society.

[denito9474]

This would lead to progress, advances in science, which would in turn advance technology, which would create material abundance while requiring less work. People would be free from the burdens of backbreaking labour, have more free time on their hands, more material possessions, and therefore be generally happier, heathier and free.

[denito9474]

What's really crazy about these set of utopian thinkers, for there had been many before them who had held such positive and hopeful views of wanting to make the world better, is that they actually got to have their ideas realised in the real world, not just on the field of battle of arguments, but by being put to test by the final arbiter, reality.

[denito9474]

Some of those darker moments include, the ruthless imperialism of the enlightened countries of western europe, in which innocent people around the globe were massacred, enslaved, dispossesed of their land, and otherwise persecuted so that modernity could strip their land of whatever they had use for, destroying the ecosystems of the areas as they saw fit.

[denito9474]

another example was the development of the urban working class who lived in utter squalor and are the beginings of our modern concept of 'poverty'. But the two world wars are taken by most as the biggest and final failures of modernity. With Hiroshima and Auschwitz standing as symbols of the epitome of that failure. The atom bomb and the death camp, two children of modernity, arguably the worst things ever to exist on this planet.

[denito9474]

After survivng Auschwitz, we're still not sure if we've survived nuclear weapons yet, but what is the status of the world? Most people are living in disgusting poverty, important global ecosystems are on the verge of collapse, we are causing a geological level of earth changes in a human level time period, and for what?

[denito9474]

So that 5% of the people on this ever increasingly crowded planet can live hollow, alienated lives of consumption and careers? Entertained by mindless advertisements guised as music, film, sport, journalism, etc?

[denito9474]

No that does not look like a rational society to me. But it is rational at every level, everything is rationalised inside of it, but the outcome is not rational. History has proven that by reducing things to essential parts, and rationalising those parts, and putting them together in a rational way fails to build a rational machine.

[denito9474]

History has proven that progress and regress come hand in hand, rationality has it's limits (Godel's incompleteness theorem), objectivity is not possible physically (relativity, quantum mechanics), non-scientific thinking systems have their merits and their drawbacks, their strengths and their limitations, just the same as science does.

[denito9474]

The aim is not to pick the perfect thinking system and believe in it absolutely, the trick is to use them all to their benefits, being wary of their disadvantages, remaining fully conscious and self-reflexive the whole time.

[denito9474]

OK, I hope that is enough to dispell your assumption that I have no reason for believing reason to be dead, paradoxical as the assumption might be.

If you now wish to ask further questions or poke holes in my answer, I would be glad to answer, as you can understand comments aren't exactly the perfect medium for throroughness.

[denito9474]

Alternatively to understand more about my perspective on this matter you could check out the following videos of mine:

"Habermas vs Foucault -- Is Modernity an Incomplete Project"

*CFhksIov18c

"Answers for InMendham"

*6R1h5nD1arI

"Re: More on (post)Modernism"

*CI0R0v11naE "Nazism and Modernity -- Response to ContraWagner part 1"

*tpa-NF7LXrw

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

Oh, the dogma is a problem. I more than likely fall under your "utopain thiker" category. Was it Socrates who said we should be moderate? I don't recall, but I agree with that to a degree. You do not think it worked? Have these ideas from "utopian thinkers" slowed down progress and made us less rational? I find this shift in thought to be postive rather than pushing us from reality.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

I don't agree with the so called rationalist and ect on YT though. As for objectivity, I think there is more than one way to understand the reality of our world. I think reality is objective, but we have trouble with it and there is not just one route to comprehending reality. Do you think happiness should be the highest value?

[denito9474]

No. I believe creativity should be the highest value, but that's a different story.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

"No. I believe creativity should be the highest value, but that's a different story."

Interesting

[denito9474]

So, would it be your view that modernity is an incomplete project?

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

"So, would it be your view that modernity is an incomplete project?"

I do not think of it as a project, I find the very notion to be sick. I am in favor of individualism and whatever can maximize my freedom.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

I do think the movements from the renaissance period were necessary for individualism and more freedom though.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

I'm not an academic student of philosophy, but I do read a lot of books on the subject.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

"The aim is not to pick the perfect thinking system and believe in it absolutely, the trick is to use them all to their benefits, being wary of their disadvantages, remaining fully conscious and self-reflexive the whole time."

I see where you're coming from there.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

As for the rest, I would not contribute it to promoting rational thought. Perhaps you can direct me to an article, topic, book, or video which is in favor of your view, so I can better understand.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

"Alternatively to understand more about my perspective on this matter you could check out the following videos of mine:

"Habermas vs Foucault -- Is Modernity an Incomplete Project"

*CFhksIov18c

"Answers for InMendham"

*6R1h5nD1arI

"Re: More on (post)Modernism"

*CI0R0v11naE "Nazism and Modernity -- Response to ContraWagner part 1"

*tpa-NF7LXrw"

Thanks for clarifying, I was not sure if I wanted to sub to you.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

"OK, I hope that is enough to dispell your assumption that I have no reason for believing reason to be dead, paradoxical as the assumption might be.

If you now wish to ask further questions or poke holes in my answer, I would be glad to answer, as you can understand comments aren't exactly the perfect medium for throroughness."

My assumptions were made dishonestly. I agree this is a bad place to discuss complex topics.

[denito9474]

"Perhaps you can direct me to an article, topic, book, or video which is in favor of your view"

I think most textbooks on modern european history will push this line. I've got John Merriman's 'A History of Modern Europe, Vol 2 - From the French Revolution to the Present'

For something shorter you might try Foucault's "What is Enlightenment?" which you can find online with a search.

or for a more whacked out take on it, you might like the words of Terrence McKenna:

/watch?v=HT8re9yvk9g

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

I will take a look.

[denito9474]

Oh and check out theoriesofmodernity(dot)blogsp­ot(dot)com

for the comprehensive lecture notes of John Grumley's (philosophy) course on modernity at Sydney Uni

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

I'll take a look at that, the article I found was not in a good format online. I disagree with a lot. I think we should be skeptical of things/people, but to abandon science and rationality makes no sense. Perhaps I have misunderstood postmodernism.

[denito9474]

I'm not talking about abandonning science.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

We need reason for science, do you reject rationality?

[denito9474]

no, I do not reject it. Like I said, it has its strengths and weaknesses, and most importantly it has limitations.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

Alright

[ucgistu]

well, excuse me but i'm quite sickened by the manner in which postmodernist make dogmatic statements as yours, if there are only assertions that describe states of mind and reality (or mainly social reality)is a cultural contruct, i fairly see no room for any intransitive stacement...

[Ignare]

Oh and by the way you must make the distinction between academic culture and popular culture, it's not because Nietzsche said something 100 years ago that cultural evolution follows. The ubiquity of an idea is not necessery establish because it was said a long time ago. You must tranmit it, and it's clearly not have been done outside of university.

[Ignare]

objectivity is so dead that I can now with the myth of scientific theory stimulate with little electric shock your brain and make you believe that your body is not your's anymore. Understand that each story is not as fondamental as the other some are more predictive and explicative then the other.

[chascoll]

I don't have much to say denito9474. But you obliviously don't live in America. A majority of Americans are crazy Christians and fundamentalist at that. I personally feel that Gorge Orwell was a genius ;) ScientificDiscussion dose make a good point though about the concept of "progress". Peace

[cloudmonkeys]

postmodernism has entered the culture but it is yet have much effect on socio-economic structures, once those structures start to change presumably archaic debates about fairy tales vs absolute truth will lessen, or maybe they wont?

[pyrrho314]

btw, great video... I've noted something similar just with respect to why the atheist/theist debate seems old at done to me... but we disagree elsewhere but you are thought provoking so good. I'll hope to respond to this.

Objectivity is not dead, it's just told in subjective terms.

[pyrrho314]

progress and rationalism are not dead, they merely have new definitions.

However, I think you don't realize how far behind our knowledge people really are. Have you notice that fallacies discovered and specified thousands of years ago still have common use in politics?

[pyrrho314]

I believe in progressive knowledge but you never know everything anyway. You can know more and more, but never know everything.

I reject the nihilistic interpretation of post-modern reality... we don't need absolute or objective knowledge, we still have relative knowledge... quite different from none at all.

[kurtilein3]

i disagree with you.

so, just because you understood the whole thing with god, you figured it out... now you conclude that religion isnt a problem, isnt causing deadly violence and intolerance, isnt causing the masses to stay ignorant and faith-driven?

if you have any sense of morality, you should speak out.

and your argument from quantum mechanics is an argument from ignorance, quantum mechanics does not contradict or violate relativity in any way.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

aye

[zackwolk]

curiosity.

- from an agnostic theist.

[lhooq21]

'new struggles, After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave-a tremendous, gruesom shadow......And we-we still have to vanquish his shadow ,too.' In America the shadow has enlisted an army of zombies. Many of them work at fox news.

[ContraWagner]

denito9474, I fucked up and responded with a random video by accident.

[touchingstoves]

It seems to me that this whole conversation, is mostly American, and largely stoked by the whole "creative design" contraversy. Given that this contraversy is a social and political reality, there's probably great cause for them to be passionate about their standpoint.

[touchingstoves]

I think, if we want to get a better understanding about "why" it is, people are debating Aetheism vs Theism so much, we should examine the creative design issue more closely.

[touchingstoves]

Such a shift in focus, would halt dinosaur arguments like Aetheism vs Theism, and would bring into light, what I think are more tangible points of discussion. Points that would revolve around the separation of religion and politics, religious freedom, and even multiculturalism.

[touchingstoves]

To qualify multiculturalism a little: Creative Design lends itself to a particular cultural world-view (ie a mostly western, abrahamic one).

[touchingstoves]

intelligent design, i mean

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

I don't think people realize how bad religion is in the southern part of the US. The movement with the born agains is very present, even in other areas of the US.

[pythagoras9]

Progress does not mean that people think they can figure everything out, it means that they can figure out more now than they knew before at an earlier stage in history.

[pythagoras9]

Labels like modernism, and rationalist, and objectivist don't mean anything, these labels are only for people who deal in labels, i prefer to deal in the truth!.

[randyhelzerman]

WOOOO HOOOOOO

Amazingly good vid mon.

[ScientificDiscussion]

Okay, so my response was utter crap. I ended up talking about albanian farmers for about half an hour. I´ll try again tonight:)

[randyhelzerman]

So the answer is too many albanian farmers and not enough bohemian latte sippers?? :-)

[davius4321]

I'm uploading my vid response. Opinions... probably not really "helpful"...

[idiothek]

just because some of the technologies achieved through scientific progress could be used for destructive purposes doesn't mean it wasn't progress that got us there. anyway, what do you use to upload your vids? cuz i'm sure they didn't have it in the 1700s...

[denito9474]

what is progress?

[idiothek]

finding things out

[denito9474]

Is any kind of finding things out considered progress? eg finding out how to genetically engineer a virus to kill billions of people?

[idiothek]

finding out how to genetically engineer anything is considered progress. using that knowledge for harmful purposes is counterproductive. there are two realms of discourse here, one epistemological, one ethical. i'm saying that scientific progress is epistemological in nature, and that this epistemological progress is undenyable.

[denito9474]

ok, so are you saying that epistemological progress does not imply ethical progress? Would you go as far as to say that epistemological progress is neutral in terms of how it effects our lives (since it is up to us whether we use it for good or evil, both at new levels)?

[idiothek]

as you so cleverly pointed out earlier, knowing something could be used for both good and bad purposes. but it doesn't follow that it doesn't affect our lives. as i cleverly pointed out earlier, you're relying on the technology that science brought you to make a pseudo-attack against it. i thought we already went over this -_-

[denito9474]

I'm not attacking science, I'm attacking a lack of historical awareness, which will lead us to repeat the mistakes of the past.

[denito9474]

But even if I was attacking science, the fact that I am using it's products to argue against it is unnavoidably necessary, If a large group of people gathered outside my house and I addressed them all asking them to move on, would it be a credible retort for them to say "oh but you are using the benefits of us all gathering here to get your message out to us all at once"?

[idiothek]

lol that was funny, but not a congruent analogy. a more accurate one would be a large demonstration against demonstrations. either you're saying that there is no scientific progress, in which case i'd reply that your position is self refuting in virtue of your using computers and the nano-technology developed only with the help of science (cont)

[idiothek]

or you're saying that technology could be used for destructive measures, in which case i'd reply that your position is trivial. anybody who has picked up a history book ever knows that.

[0ThouArtThat0]

how would you distinguish finding something out from projecting something new?

[idiothek]

let's see. i project a new creature with a dog's head and a fish's body. a scientist discovers a 400 year old clam. the former is based on my imagination alone, the latter is based on empirical evidence and real kinds.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I agree, though by "something" I wasn't so much talking about specific facts as about paradigmatic truths. Do we find out about the truth, or do we constantly recreate it? Would you disagree that empiricism (how would you define it, btw?) and communicating accurately about it (which is what I think of when I read "real kinds") is also an act of imagination, or at least also an act that relies as heavily on imagination as on "reality"?

[0ThouArtThat0]

I say we construct our truths out of an overwhelmingly ambiguous experience. Which is why I put "reality" in quotations. I don't know what that word could possibly mean, but supposing it meant access to the external world, to the "things in themselves," then viewing reality would be impossible...

[0ThouArtThat0]

To view is to view from somewhere and in some time. To view is to view from an embodied perspective. This is why I asked about empiricism above. Are we looking at the world itself or are we always already projecting an imaginal framework on top of it in order to understand it? What does it mean to be empirical?

[0ThouArtThat0]

if progress is about finding things out, what is it we are trying to prove with all the facts we're collecting? What's the goal?

We can separate epistemological progress from moral progress only on paper. In our embodied experience, they are too closely related. The desire to know something implies a reason that knowing it is important. Why is it important? Because it is good! So the goal of knowledge must be to achieve goodness... what else could possibly motivate it?

[idiothek]

um specific facts are true? i can't see how anybody would have the problem with a statement like this: "it is objectively true that, save specific genetic abnormalities, human beings have 46 chromosomes." if you agree to that, you agree to the natural kinds of human beings, the reality of chromosomes, and predicates standing in real relationships to individuals :sigh: i have a real philosophy paper to write.

[zorio]

You're essentially saying "there exists some being with 46 chromosomes (usually), we will call it 'human'" and then saying "the fact that humans have 46 chromosomes is an undeniable fact!" It only gains the status of "fact" because you have defined it that way.

[randyhelzerman]

I object to that statement ;-) because I don't think "objectively" adds anything to it. If we know its true that we have 46 chromosomes, why do we have to go on to say its _objectively_ true? the word objective is just dead weight there. BTW, when I was born we thought that humans had 48 chromosomes :-)

[touchingstoves]

Some intersexed individuals have 23 or 69 chromosones. These people wouldn't be considered human by your definition. :(

[EvBrand]

thus spoke zarathustra...

[inmendham]

The idea that "now" is just "then" seems the clear nonsense. The science of Darwin and Einstein have dramatically changed rational perspective. We now have the tools to fix our broken society, and our broken psychology... the past only had crude, brutal, "final solutions"... we can now choose better solutions that don't require destruction, just the sacrifice of letting go of ignorance.

[zorio]

What you're failing to realize is that you're advocating the same project as before with simply new labels. All knowing reason is still the agent, and the mission is still conquest of "ignorance" which is whoever happens to be the minority against which those who are "rational" set themselves in opposition of.

[inmendham]

You are basically arguing that all intellectual progress is sideways motion... I say the power to destroy the world has clearly changed the circumstantial equation... there is a big difference between arguing against religion, and arguing for progress. I want archaic nonsense out of the design of social infrastructure as it will destroy the integrity of anything built... limited to a personal fantasy I could care less about religion.

[denito9474]

One major lesson of modernity: All progress is also regress, new technologies of creation are also technologies of destruction, technologies designed to free workers have also served to enslave them, attempts to bring rationality into the lives of population have also resulted in new highs of public irrationality.

[denito9474]

This is not some bullshit convoluted argument that all progress is sideways motion, this is a recognition of the historical fact that it is naive to believe in and focus in on progress alone while ignoring the regress that ALWAYS comes with it, and always will.

[inmendham]

"""recognition of the historical fact"""

there are points where historical patterns become irrelevant... some change is real change. doomsday weapons change how civilizations can rise and how they can fall... historically men fought to replace one God with other God, I argue we have the tools to replace God with a truth and that is real.. You are claiming a false duality.. we can have everything, and pay nothing for it, because we can design from a perspective we never had before.

[denito9474]

That might be a convincing argument, if it hadn't been argued before, and if those who argued it didn't end up building Auschwitz.

"We have the tools to replace God with truth". Truth and God are the same thing

[inmendham]

"""Truth and God are the same thing"""

I would argue that God is a cheap, synthetic, selfish and convenient imitation of truth... we now know its origins to be ignorance and bigotry and we can now tell the difference between fool's gold, and the real deal. Auschwitz was built by "izums" that can only fester in a philosophy of subjective bullshit. logic and intelligence can be immune if they aren't made slave to any subjective want. (beyond a want for the truth)

[denito9474]

I would contend that "isms" can only fester in an environment where claims to objectivity are taken seriously.

[denito9474]

"logic and intelligence can be made immune if they aren't made slave to any subjective want"

Come on... Logic simply allows you to come to the conclusion that was implied by your starting point. There is no impartial or neutral starting point. A self-reflexive approach is the only option. We do not rise above our subjectivity by pretending to objectivity, we rise above it by acknowledging it and taking account of it.

[inmendham]

"""There is no impartial or neutral starting point."""

suffering is in-and-of itself a bad thing... seems a pretty neutral starting point

"""acknowledging it and taking account of it"""

you can only realistically do that accurately from a well modeled objective perspective.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Gary,

"suffering is in-and-of itself a bad thing"

what is a "bad thing"? Is there anyway to define what a bad thing is without referring in some way to what is good? Can we define disease without understanding health?

my point with the silly questions is that we only think to describe something as bad after we have already valued a particular good. In your case the good is the truth...

[0ThouArtThat0]

...The truth is a "well modeled objective perspective."

But which particular perspective are you talking about? If the truth is something which might be objectively modeled, show us the models, quick! Start shouting them in the streets! We have no time to spare!

The truth, if it exists and is available to rational thought, must be some particular, concrete, and detailed proposition (an equation)...

[0ThouArtThat0]

...If a human being "cannot understand the equation" (which could also mean "disagrees with it"), what are the initiates to do with them?

The the "dumb" (or dissident) people can't have an "equal" say in how things run, they'd ruin everything and ignore the truth. they either have to be locked up and rehabilitated or, if all else fails, killed. One cannot legally oppose the truth! If the truth exists, it must be followed!

[0ThouArtThat0]

I do not want to sound like I am putting words in your mouth, I'm just trying to point out that saying truth is objective rests atop a pre-linguistic, non-rational, unconscious emotional reaction to life that isn't necessarily the only "real" initial reaction one can have the world.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Different emotional reactions give rise to different logical rationalizations about what it all means, and about what the objective truth is. We each want the truth that fills our own emotional holes. If we lack health, we desire vitality. If we lack knowledge, we desire truth. If we lack spirit, we desire God.

[0ThouArtThat0]

The Nazis lacked power and respect, so they desired dominance. The truth became whatever allowed them to satisfy that emotional craving fastest. They built objective models for the purpose of ending the suffering of the German people by destroying anything that stood in their way.

Truth is never objective, it always implies a particular goal, it always rests on a the hoisting up of one particular value above all others.

[pythagoras9]

0ThouArtThat0, to claim that truth is never objective is a completely erroneous statement in every way. The truth is mostly objective, and only some of it is subjective and this is because most of our simple ideas of the truth come from our sense impressions of the objective physical reality around us, and our subjective truth is only a result of this objective truth combined with our own physical, and mental experiences.

[cosmanthony21]

is it true that your heart beats inside your chest? Why is truth to found outside? Where is it. ITS RIGHT HERE, NOW. there is no seeking for, seeking the truth, you run further from it.

[randyhelzerman]

Deductive logic is simply the art of begging the question.

[Kaaru]

Deductive logic is simply a tool for preserving truth while making inferences. :-)

[pyrrho314]

no, because at the bottom, the propositions are sensorimotor statements... so deductive logic is about processing sensorimotor phenomenon, which is not tautalogical, but genuine input.

while philosophers wait for the world to catch up to postmodernism, the cognitive scientists are waiting for them.

[Sacramentosaint]

You took the video right out of my head. Atheist arguing with theist is a waste of time.

[ScientificDiscussion]

Hopefully, I´ll find time to make a video response tonight. I really like the video, well at least until you totally undermine everything with a single sentence:)

[2bsirius]

Thanks for thinking I have something coherent to say -- or at least that I did when I was still Cosmic Pilgrim. I don't know why you don't have thousands and thousands of views. SOME of the most-viewed Youtubers aren't saying a tenth of the engaging, interesting and insightful things you do.

[randyhelzerman]

give it time 2bsirius, I think denito's well on his way :-)

[idiothek]

umm LOL great post :D

[8rf]

Now I get it... this is something like Baudlliard? You know.... ? Ay denito.... ? Is there some connection with him?.... SIMULAKR?

[denito9474]

Actually, I haven't read simulacra and simulation (although it's high up on my amazon wish list). You tell me if there is a connection, maybe Zorio can help out, he seems to be the resident Baudrillard scholar.

[8rf]

I think that there is a connection. I didn't read Baudlliard... But, i have seen reprezentations of his thoughts by other people.... you should definitely read something of him... I will also try to find some books on my language.

[zorio]

Consumerism (Globalization) does indeed replace God on His throne, since God is dead. Of course, consumerism was never alive to begin with, we've simply been eating the corpse.

[0neironaut]

you magnificent bastard!

[touchingstoves]

Richard Rorty from "The Future of Religion":

"One effect of the rise of anti-essentialism and of historicism is insouciance about what Lecky famously called '"the warfare between science and theology."' A growing tendency to accept what Terry Pinkard calls "Hegel's doctrine of the sociality of reason" and to abandon what Habermas calls "subject-centered reason" for what he calls "communicative reason" has (cont)

[touchingstoves]

weakened the grip of the idea that scientific beliefs are formed rationally, whereas religious beliefs are not. The antipositivist tenor of post-Kuhnian philosophy of science has combined with the work of post-Heidegarrian theologians to make intellectuals more sympathetic to William James's claim that natural science and religion need not compete with one another."

(Rorty & Vattimo, 2005, "The Future of Religion", Columbia University Press, New York)

[idiothek]

lol um let's see... christianity, for one, claims the earth was formed several thousand years ago. science says several billion. i think there's at least a bit of competition there.

[randyhelzerman]

see my reply to touching stoves on this...

[kvempire]

touchingstoves, all i have to say about that is religious manuscripts and scientific records do not cordinate with one another. Though the relationship between spirituality in general and quantum physics seems to be increasing.

[randyhelzerman]

see my reply to touchingstoves on this...

[randyhelzerman]

Hi idiothek and kvempire, what Rorty is talking about in the quote which touchingstoves gave is that a different kind of conflict. e.g. the conflict between describing a person as a physical object vs. describing a person as a moral agent. (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

religion _can_ conflict with, say, astronomy if it tries to make an astronomical statement (the sun standing still in the sky, e.g.) but there's no conflict between religion and astronomy when religion sticks to making religious statements (e.g. "love your neighbor as yourself").

[touchingstoves]

Thanks Randy.

[kvempire]

thanks for clarifying, i read it with haste

[matrixcmitech]

whoa - this vid is ON THE SPOT! you nailed it!!!@!!~@@ thanks denito... i'm glad your voice is on youtube @@!~@@

[touchingstoves]

You Kantian!

[cosabio]

I thought modernism was dead. :-/

[0neironaut]

Maybe the answer is in your allusion to Nietzsche. In his sounding out false idols and proclaiming "God is dead", Nietzsche expresses the need for a new myth, a new God, a new narrative...

[0neironaut]

maybe these debates are attempts to rebuild a 'new' ground. The postmodern death of God, and all grand narratives alike, is not a position but an illness to overcome. perhaps this rehashing of God is not indicative of a simple regress or return, but is a re-interpretation? an old shell being filled with new meanings?

[0neironaut]

hahaha ORRRRR... the theist/atheist debates are knowingly 'undecidable' and people just looove polemics! yet another "reification" of the postmodern condition: people are more concerned with the sign-value of the label "atheist" or "theist"...

[0neironaut]

religious debates provide fertile ground for people to flex their intellectual muscles... or, jack their philosophical dicks off...

it always feels good to be 'right'... RIGHT?!

[denito9474]

If this were a re-interpretation (how postmodern of them) then it would include some form of self-awareness, awareness of the fact that this is a re-interpretation of something which has already been played out on the stage of history. But I see no evidence of any such awareness.

[denito9474]

P.S. "The postmodern death of God, and all grand narratives alike, is not a position but an illness to overcome."

Really?

[Questionablescum]

Of course it is an illness. This is why Nietzsche thought of the Ubermensch. The nihilism that results from the death of god, needs to be overcome in some way, but the question is how. But since Nietzsche was a perspectivist to say that there could not be a reinterpretation or revival of religion seem erroneous, as there is no one size fits all way of dealing with nihilism. If there were, that would be quite modern.

[0neironaut]

sorry, i should have said the "Nietzschean" death of God...

[zorio]

The death of God is not truly postmodern. Nietzsche himself said that only the God of morality had truly been killed. Postmodernism has seen a reinvigoration of God. I'll try to make a video on this...