Does the role of indexicals in language tell us something about how we understand consciousness and intentionality?
There seems to be something which, unless there is life after death, ceases to exist. Yet, on a materialist view, everything is matter, and matter is not created nor destroyed. What is it that ceases to exist?
203 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 203 of 203grod
"Your concern about my mental health is endearing. As you say, psychosis is very common, but alas, I am afraid I am already too far gone. I mean, the voices inside my head, they just won't shut up! Oh wait, it is just the radio (turns radio off -- now, that is better). "
I made no mention of concern for your mental health. I am sorry you have taken it this way. I was explicit in making the distinction between the pejorative colloquial sense of the word, psychosis, and its clinical sense. And judging by the tenor of your response, it seems you have no knowledge or understanding of the word 'pejorative'.
And you are right, we all suffer from varying degrees of psychosis, as do I. Anxiety is a classic example of psychosis that we all experience from time to time throughout our lives. And generally, we can govern ourselves to mitigate anxiety in many different ways. For those that can't some form of medical remediation is required, usually temporary.
But what I am getting at is that a belief, say for example, Aquinas's five-ways as the one true perspective for living one's life, such a statement is clearly without foundation as billions of people have not even heard of Aquinas let alone read his writings. And they and their families live just as well as you or I do. So clearly Aquinas's five-ways are not a measure of reality of the world. It is when people begin to fervently believe that the five-ways is the one way, that a psychosis manifests.
I am saddened by your misplaced show of indignation.
William
"Only if the category of the question is one which requires a scientific explanation, which, I would suggest, your anti-religious philosophical issues do not require."
And who determines whether the question should be answered with or not a scientific explanation? Where is the cut-off demarcation?
I am not, per se, anti-religion. if religion was kept a private matter I have no issue. When religion wishes to influence public policy, it had better come up with better than scriptural answers and reasons a little more substantial than 'because the bible says so". The underlying universal secular values that transcend all religions are those that most need protecting. Scientific understanding is closet to secular understanding of the world.
Theological reasons are notoriously indiscriminate, with reasoning based on little more than expressed opinion. An example of the paucity of theological reasoning is that of distinguishing the sacred from the profane, the mind-body dualism, god-man dualism etc. However such reasoning does not hold true in all circumstances. What is holy and sacred to one member of the community, another member is quite happy to trash, no less so christians; eg, Koran burning. Theology operates on boundaries that are not universally acknowledged nor accepted. Science on the other hand, trespasses on the boundary of the sacred not because it is opposed to the sacred but because it has no concept of sacred at all. Sacred is a religious concept, not a scientific one and not a natural one. To science nothing is sacred, because 'sacred' is not a part of its vocabulary. So when science ignores religious boundaries, it handles religion roughly - like any pithed frog or pinned butterfly. And when science finds facts that refute religious claims - about man, about society, about the universe, or about god[s] - it comes as a tear of the skin that no religion welcomes or can withstand.
In summation, theology, like all adult activities, should remain in the privacy of one's own home.
Do these posts go over 200?
Post a Comment