The recovery of subjectivism and its close sister nihilism will truncate mans experience to the degree that common sensibility will finally govern the moves we make in legislation, universities, relationships, etc. These will aid to the betterment of mankind. I take great pleasure in annihilating realism albeit the illusion serves to adjudicate the decisions one makes in the bedroom.
I’m open to debating you here on the so-called Argument from Reason. I look forward to the forthcoming debate, evolving men.
A subjectivist and nihilist has no business talking about "betterment" of anything, much less of "mankind".
And if you're declaring yourself as a subjectivist and nihilist, why would anyone want to debate you? Your philosophical commitments make it clear you'll lie and cheat if it suits you. Better to argue with someone deluded Dawkins-style - their inconsistencies increase the odds they'll be honest.
Greetings Anon! I'm in the “business” of demarcating language the way I see fit and as you well know, what’s true for you isn’t true for me. I’d hasten to use words like lie and cheat since they impose an imperative unsolicited to my acquiesce. Confront if you will, I await your syllogism with defeater in hand. Back to soliloquies...
Why do you need me to engage you? Just say you engaged me. Hell, say you engaged me and won. You're in the business of demarcating language as you see fit, remember?
I'm not interested in playing philosophical Calvinball. Team Fortress 2 is getting a sniper update soon, after all.
Charles, you and I both know (I'm being charitable) that the success of AFR depends upon the truth of epiphenomenalism. Unfortunately, evolving one, epiphenomenalism is ~ true. Flush to the Argument from Reason. All hail the God[s] of Panpsychism. Geez, that was really easy...
If the AfR forces one to embrace panpsychism to 'defeat' it, the proponent of the AfR has won. If one tries to save naturalism by rejecting materialism, you ain't savin' much.
Anon, why the sudden curl to defense? Panpsychism is certainly the straw that snaps the camels back. Willist thee expound on your excruciating prose? I’m anticipating an erudite unpacking. Come as you are and play if you will. On with it!
I don't want to 'play' with you. You're a goofball. As any nihilist without physical means to do harm always is. ;)
And if you think embracing panpsychism "defeats" the AfR, then you either don't know what panpsychism is, or you don't know what the AfR is. You should have done what I said at the start: Play the demarcate language card, say you debated and won. Giving a losing argument and then trying to say you've won is... well, I suppose so long as it makes you happy, eh? It makes me smile too, so perhaps we're both winning here!
Not so fast. Wasn’t I lucid enough? From panpsychism and consciousness it’s plain as day that one can reason to the truth. This fact steamrolls AFR! What’s with the mendacious bifurcation? My suggestion to you is that you park the car and waddle here for a while. I’ll think of a way to unpack my project in the meantime. Be open-minded, but not to the degree that your sense spills out. Matter over mind baby! You feel me?
I'd like to take a moment to challenge Alvin Plantinga to a formal debate. His argument is allegedly related to Reppert's AFR and since Reppert is no place to be found, Plantinga is a second best contender. So-called John Loftus (@ DC) isn't the only guy itching to scrap.
And I'd like to challenge Dicky Dawkins, Chris the Hitch, and everyone else to a debate. Look at me! Look at me! I'm an anonymous/pseudonym'd person challenging popular authors on thar interwebs!
Your embrace of 'panpsychism and consciousness' doesn't steamroll AfR, which it's becoming more and more apparent that you don't even understand. It surrenders to it. It leaves the modern naturalist project in shambles, neuters the already quivering New Atheist wannabe-movement, and kicks the door wide open to mind being a fundamental aspect of reality - which in turn not only pushes the whole debate towards a resolution in favor of theism in general, but invites stinging response from panentheists in particular.
Your method doesn't steamroll the AfR. It drives right over it, at which point you realize it's a landmine, your car o' atheism/naturalism is destroyed, and you look like a damned fool.
Face it, ITA. You're not a big-league debater. You're not even on the level of Loftus and crew. You're a pud, a rank amateur, a clown. You threw your best punch and it hit yourself in the face. Give up, go home, console yourself with the fact that your nihilism lets you think it all doesn't matter anyway.
Got that, cannon-baby? Your artillery blew up in your face. And it was little more than a peashooter to begin with.
So you’ve stooped to the level of Popinjays. I wish you weren’t abridged.
On your landscape, one concludes that a contingent universe is god. More, hanging chads. Can you see the curtains tearing apart? Are you aware that I've exposed AFR in less then 3 posts? I’ve handed it to you on a platter. There is no problem of mental causation when the most fundamental feature of reality does this naturally. I’ll await your prose while clipping toenails.
I’ve read Ilion’s thread and cordially hand the bearded man my condolences.
VR: "This is a long overdue development. All of you intellectually dishonest people will welcome the opportunity go comment over there."
Why do you think I haven't started my own blog previously? There are many reasons, of course; among which are that I what great procrastinator I am. But also, I don't like dealing with intellectually dishonest persons -- and I fully expect that should I have any sort of readership that most of those who comment will be exactly the sort od person I least like to deal with.
Well, at least I won't have to deal with Anonymice, since I've disabled anonymous posting.
Quoting a review of Galen Strawson's book where he (as near as I can tell - I haven't read it yet) flat out endorsed panpsychism: "For surely the dualist is right to think that if Strawson has shown that the realistic materialist must choose between eliminativism, pure panpsychism, or Spinozistical panpsychism, dualism looks better than ever."
BTW, Ilion, welcome to the wide world of blogging. Your first post had me laughing.
Mr Reppert, here's something you may (or may not) find interesting -- Douglas Wilson: No Dead Cats Yet Though (specifically, the Christianity Today profile of him to which he links).
Well, I'm also a terrible slacker, so there's no telling how good/productive a blogger I'll be. Still, if others are getting something out of what I do happen to write and/or I'm getting something out of others' responses (assuming anyone does read it and respond), that will help give me motivation to be more productive.
Anonymous "... The first time I ever 'met' you was on the arn forums... back in 04."
Well, hey there! [furtively tries to remember Anonymous' name ;-) ] It's a small world, after all, isn't it?
You know, it was on the ARN discussion boards that I made the acquaintance of and developed the loathing for that brand of passive-aggressive "niceness" by which well-meaning persons (*) act as enablers for decidedly un-nice persons to trample in various ways on others.
(*) Though, generally, their well-meaningness is foolish and misplaced ... and it tends to be uni-directional.
26 comments:
LOL. Vayo con dios
The recovery of subjectivism and its close sister nihilism will truncate mans experience to the degree that common sensibility will finally govern the moves we make in legislation, universities, relationships, etc. These will aid to the betterment of mankind. I take great pleasure in annihilating realism albeit the illusion serves to adjudicate the decisions one makes in the bedroom.
I’m open to debating you here on the so-called Argument from Reason. I look forward to the forthcoming debate, evolving men.
Apologetically,
ITA
A subjectivist and nihilist has no business talking about "betterment" of anything, much less of "mankind".
And if you're declaring yourself as a subjectivist and nihilist, why would anyone want to debate you? Your philosophical commitments make it clear you'll lie and cheat if it suits you. Better to argue with someone deluded Dawkins-style - their inconsistencies increase the odds they'll be honest.
Greetings Anon! I'm in the “business” of demarcating language the way I see fit and as you well know, what’s true for you isn’t true for me. I’d hasten to use words like lie and cheat since they impose an imperative unsolicited to my acquiesce. Confront if you will, I await your syllogism with defeater in hand. Back to soliloquies...
Why do you need me to engage you? Just say you engaged me. Hell, say you engaged me and won. You're in the business of demarcating language as you see fit, remember?
I'm not interested in playing philosophical Calvinball. Team Fortress 2 is getting a sniper update soon, after all.
I applaud the mere mortal attempt! Perhaps someone would like to defend AFR? Presumably, someone here isn't hanging on skin tags.
Hi ITA.
Sure. I'll defend the AFR.
[insert argument from reason]
Assume I made the argument. What's your response?
Charles, you and I both know (I'm being charitable) that the success of AFR depends upon the truth of epiphenomenalism. Unfortunately, evolving one, epiphenomenalism is ~ true. Flush to the Argument from Reason. All hail the God[s] of Panpsychism. Geez, that was really easy...
If the AfR forces one to embrace panpsychism to 'defeat' it, the proponent of the AfR has won. If one tries to save naturalism by rejecting materialism, you ain't savin' much.
Anon, why the sudden curl to defense? Panpsychism is certainly the straw that snaps the camels back. Willist thee expound on your excruciating prose? I’m anticipating an erudite unpacking. Come as you are and play if you will. On with it!
and yes, the parts do think toward reason. What now?
and with reason, I mean only conventionally. Checkmate!
I don't want to 'play' with you. You're a goofball. As any nihilist without physical means to do harm always is. ;)
And if you think embracing panpsychism "defeats" the AfR, then you either don't know what panpsychism is, or you don't know what the AfR is. You should have done what I said at the start: Play the demarcate language card, say you debated and won. Giving a losing argument and then trying to say you've won is... well, I suppose so long as it makes you happy, eh? It makes me smile too, so perhaps we're both winning here!
Not so fast. Wasn’t I lucid enough? From panpsychism and consciousness it’s plain as day that one can reason to the truth. This fact steamrolls AFR! What’s with the mendacious bifurcation? My suggestion to you is that you park the car and waddle here for a while. I’ll think of a way to unpack my project in the meantime. Be open-minded, but not to the degree that your sense spills out. Matter over mind baby! You feel me?
I'd like to take a moment to challenge Alvin Plantinga to a formal debate. His argument is allegedly related to Reppert's AFR and since Reppert is no place to be found, Plantinga is a second best contender. So-called John Loftus (@ DC) isn't the only guy itching to scrap.
And I'd like to challenge Dicky Dawkins, Chris the Hitch, and everyone else to a debate. Look at me! Look at me! I'm an anonymous/pseudonym'd person challenging popular authors on thar interwebs!
Your embrace of 'panpsychism and consciousness' doesn't steamroll AfR, which it's becoming more and more apparent that you don't even understand. It surrenders to it. It leaves the modern naturalist project in shambles, neuters the already quivering New Atheist wannabe-movement, and kicks the door wide open to mind being a fundamental aspect of reality - which in turn not only pushes the whole debate towards a resolution in favor of theism in general, but invites stinging response from panentheists in particular.
Your method doesn't steamroll the AfR. It drives right over it, at which point you realize it's a landmine, your car o' atheism/naturalism is destroyed, and you look like a damned fool.
Face it, ITA. You're not a big-league debater. You're not even on the level of Loftus and crew. You're a pud, a rank amateur, a clown. You threw your best punch and it hit yourself in the face. Give up, go home, console yourself with the fact that your nihilism lets you think it all doesn't matter anyway.
Got that, cannon-baby? Your artillery blew up in your face. And it was little more than a peashooter to begin with.
So you’ve stooped to the level of Popinjays. I wish you weren’t abridged.
On your landscape, one concludes that a contingent universe is god. More, hanging chads. Can you see the curtains tearing apart? Are you aware that I've exposed AFR in less then 3 posts? I’ve handed it to you on a platter. There is no problem of mental causation when the most fundamental feature of reality does this naturally. I’ll await your prose while clipping toenails.
I’ve read Ilion’s thread and cordially hand the bearded man my condolences.
And so the nihilist with no argument whines and accuses others of stooping. Geez.
You don't get it, you'll never get it. Turn off the computer, go play some PS3 until you're told it's time to do homework and go to bed. You failed.
ITA. This is not how to conduct a discussion. You're banned.
VR: "This is a long overdue development. All of you intellectually dishonest people will welcome the opportunity go comment over there."
Why do you think I haven't started my own blog previously? There are many reasons, of course; among which are that I what great procrastinator I am. But also, I don't like dealing with intellectually dishonest persons -- and I fully expect that should I have any sort of readership that most of those who comment will be exactly the sort od person I least like to deal with.
Well, at least I won't have to deal with Anonymice, since I've disabled anonymous posting.
All I'll say is... panpsychism? Really?
Quoting a review of Galen Strawson's book where he (as near as I can tell - I haven't read it yet) flat out endorsed panpsychism: "For surely the dualist is right to think that if Strawson has shown that the realistic materialist must choose between eliminativism, pure panpsychism, or Spinozistical panpsychism, dualism looks better than ever."
BTW, Ilion, welcome to the wide world of blogging. Your first post had me laughing.
ITA here. I admonish all readers to defend AFR against the Panpsychist God[s].
Mr Reppert, here's something you may (or may not) find interesting -- Douglas Wilson: No Dead Cats Yet Though (specifically, the Christianity Today profile of him to which he links).
Ilion,
cool you have a blog.
The first time I ever 'met' you was on the arn forums... back in 04.
Anonymous "cool you have a blog."
Well, I'm also a terrible slacker, so there's no telling how good/productive a blogger I'll be. Still, if others are getting something out of what I do happen to write and/or I'm getting something out of others' responses (assuming anyone does read it and respond), that will help give me motivation to be more productive.
Anonymous "... The first time I ever 'met' you was on the arn forums... back in 04."
Well, hey there! [furtively tries to remember Anonymous' name ;-) ] It's a small world, after all, isn't it?
You know, it was on the ARN discussion boards that I made the acquaintance of and developed the loathing for that brand of passive-aggressive "niceness" by which well-meaning persons (*) act as enablers for decidedly un-nice persons to trample in various ways on others.
(*) Though, generally, their well-meaningness is foolish and misplaced ... and it tends to be uni-directional.
LOL.
Sorry about that ilion.
On ARN I was p.falk.
Huzzah!
Post a Comment