|
On the Trance Listener (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| IntoTrance |
Paradox Lost:
After reading your profile and seeing that you too have an interest in philosophy and critical thinking, I appreciate your additions to the conversation even more.
Off topic: what types of philosophy are you interested in? Are you more inclined towards rationalism or empiricism? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Rationalism is a delusion. |
|
|
| IntoTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Rationalism is a delusion. |
More of an assumption than a delusion.
Correct nevertheless. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by IntoTrance
More of an assumption than a delusion.
Correct nevertheless. |
Pah. How anybody can seriously maintain a rationalist position after the development of neuroscience is beyond me. |
|
|
| IntoTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Pah. How anybody can seriously maintain a rationalist position after the development of neuroscience is beyond me. |
Even before neuroscience came about, Empiricism, championed by (beware, namedrops ahead)John Locke, Bishop Berkely and David Hume (all British), absolutely DESTROYED rationalism. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Well, I thought Kant gave it a fighting chance. But eventually conceptual systems have to yield to the reality that science discovers. |
|
|
| IntoTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Well, I thought Kant gave it a fighting chance. But eventually conceptual systems have to yield to the reality that science discovers. |
Indeed, the major reason that modern philosophy flounders and gasps for breath. Morality and Ethics only go so far. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Actually, the main reason that modern philosophy flounders is that it doesn't take morality seriously. Or at least it was that way for much of the twentieth century, but now things are wide open again. There aren't really "schools" anymore. Everyone's an eclectic. |
|
|
| Paradox Lost |
| quote: | Originally posted by IntoTrance
Paradox Lost:
After reading your profile and seeing that you too have an interest in philosophy and critical thinking, I appreciate your additions to the conversation even more.
Off topic: what types of philosophy are you interested in? Are you more inclined towards rationalism or empiricism? |
Generally speaking (and I realize this may tug at the chords of you and others), but I find much of my bearing with Rationalism, though I'm not among those who would seek to undermine any validity within Empiricism (if there are any such minds at all). Anyway, I'd rather not take this thread in that particular direction, but generally speaking, my most interesting experiences have concerned my studies with Neoplatonic Cosmology and Aristotelian Cosmology, as well as positions on Determinism.
That said, and in regards to the essential content of this thread, I am really having difficulty reconciling your extensive dismissal of the various responses to your arguments that have emerged throughout this thread when several points have yet to be dealt with by you. I understand the added difficulty of responding to multiple detractors at once, but it would certainly provide some added leverage to your position if more relevant feedback were provided on your end (despite many of the irrelevant criticisms you've been receiving). |
|
|
| IntoTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Actually, the main reason that modern philosophy flounders is that it doesn't take morality seriously. Or at least it was that way for much of the twentieth century, but now things are wide open again. There aren't really "schools" anymore. Everyone's an eclectic. |
Things won't be "wide open" for years and years to come. The only areas that leave room for extreme advancement are in chemistry and physics, both applied sciences.
However, that is a topic for another subject.
Insightful posts thus far. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by IntoTrance
Things won't be "wide open" for years and years to come. The only areas that leave room for extreme advancement are in chemistry and physics, both applied sciences. |
Well, lots of philosophers think that there isn't any such thing as "advancement" in philosophy. To them it's more or less just a change of fashions. |
|
|
| IntoTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by Paradox Lost
Neoplatonic Cosmology and Aristotelian Cosmology, as well as positions on Determinism. |
Good choices.
| quote: | | That said, and in regards to the essential content of this thread, I am really having difficulty reconciling your extensive dismissal of the various responses to your arguments that have emerged throughout this thread when many of them have yet to be dealt with by you. I understand the added difficulty of responding to multiple detractors at once, but it would certainly provide some added leverage to your position if more relevant feedback were provided on your end (despite many of the irrelevant criticisms you've been receiving). |
I offer reasonable, logical responses only when I feel that they will be understood. The minds here, that have thus been encountered and whcih you can surely attest to, are not receptive by any means.
I refuse to be the public speaker directing his lecture or speech in the direction of an uninterested, unreceptive audience. |
|
|
|
|
