What're the best fiction books w philsophical underpinnings?

I just want to absolutely clarify this... My only disagreement is with your assertion that Asimov is an atheist as an article of faith

Nothing in that interview suggests that Asimov's belief was one rooted in faith. Asimov offered up a number of logical reasons why he doesn't believe in god. That in and of itself demonstrates that his nonbelief in god is one rooted not in faith but in firm reasons.

Chumly wrote:

unless or until the existence of god can be wholly disproved in the absolute sense, the possibility remains even if the probability does not. You have provided no salient rationale against this position and as discussed lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

In science and logic, lack of any supporting evidence IS grounds for rejecting a hypothesis.

You are essentially arguing that not believing something because there is absolutely no evidence for that belief is a conclusion based on faith, rather than one based on logic.

By that reasoning, my strong belief that there is no santa claus is one not based on logic or scientific reasoning, or the complete lack of evidence that santa claus exists, but a belief based on blind faith.

Is my strong belief that the entire world is not resting on a giant tortoise also not based on logic but on blind faith?

Atheism is by definition a LACK of a belief in god. It is one grounded firmly in the fact that there is no evidence for god, no logical reason to presume god exists, and thus no reason to have a belief in god. Thus atheism is NOT an article of faith. It is an extention of logic.

One needs faith to believe in santa claus, or a giant tortoise upon which the entire planet sits. One does not need faith to not believe in those things because no reason to believe in those things exists. The same applies to god.

I really don't think there is anything fruitful to be gained from this debate though. We are essentially arguing semantics. We seem to be in complete agreement over the main point, that Asimov was a brilliant man.

So how about we just drop it and go back to sharing philosophical pieces of fiction.

Speaking of which, growing up, I collected every Calvin and Hobbes book there was and read them all religiously. From what I recall, there are quite a few philosophical gems contained within those pages. Everything from humanity's place in the universe to the very nature of man himself.

If you haven't read those comics, regardless of your age, I HIGHLY recommend checking out one of the collections at the local library.

If you happen to have any other philosophical short stories, I would love to read them.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

In science and logic, lack of any supporting evidence IS grounds for rejecting a proposition.

False, in the sense that your claim is rather incomplete!

Lack of supporting evidence is far from the only set of criteria by which a proposition may be considered to have a given level of merit. For example: if I was to propose that there are more planets orbiting the sun than can presently be assessed by modern methods, that proposition would likely have a lower level of merit as compared to the proposition that not all species of insects have yet been found.

It's not the lack of supporting evidence per se, it's the assessment of the comprehensiveness of the scientific investigations to date.

Further it should be understood that lack of "supporting evidence" did not stop the fact that Pluto existed before "supporting evidence".

Also you are again playing the Straw Man because nowhere did I say the existence of god was a "proposition", in fact FWIW those of faith would claim it to be axiomatic and not a simply a "proposition".

Centroles wrote:

By that reasoning, my strong belief that there is no Santa Claus is one not based on logic or scientific reasoning, or the complete lack of evidence that Santa Claus exists, but on blind faith.

You miss the point again for a number of reasons not the least of which are:

1) You have not shown that Santa Claus has a level of plausibility with which one can make a valid comparison to the level of plausibility for god

2) You have not proven in the absolute sense that Santa Claus does not exist

3) You have in no way disproved the existence of god and unless you do the Strong Atheist position in the absolute relies on faith because the Strong Atheist position dictates that god does not exist

Centroles wrote:

Is my strong belief that the entire world is not resting on a giant tortoise also not based on logic but on blind faith?

To deny that the philosophy of science and thus science itself relies on elements of the axiomatic and thus rests on faith to some degree would be foolish.

Centroles wrote:

Atheism is by definition a LACK of a belief in god.

Atheism is much more complicated than you make it out to be. I refer to Strong Atheism as discussed. The Strong Atheist position relies on faith because the Strong Atheist position dictates that god does not exist.

Centroles wrote:

So how about we just drop it and go back to sharing philosophical pieces of fiction.

OK spoil my fun!

0 Replies

Aqui

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

You have not shown that Santa Claus has a level of plausibility with which one can make a valid comparison to the level of plausibility for god

2) You have not proven in the absolute sense that Santa Claus does not exist.

Nothing can be disproven in the absolute sense! It's crazy to suggest that I can't believe that there isn't a santa claus (or god), until I disprove them in the absolute sense. The people positing the alternate hypothesis (that god or santa claus exists) carry the burden of proof, not the other way around. It's those with the burden of proof who have failed to provide any objective evidence for god, and thus it does not require faith to reject their hypothesis despite your claim, logic suffices.

I have no desire to prolong the argument but I just had to add that and also point out that in fact, Santa Claus is more plausible than god, not less.

Is there objective evidence that either being exists? No.

Is there any feat that Santa Claus is capable of that god isn't? No.

Is there any feat that God is capable of that Santa Claus isn't? Yes, lots.

So objectively, it requires less bending of science and thus faith to believe that a being such as Santa Claus exists than it does to believe that a being such as god exists.

0 Replies

You're getting a bit closer now, however you need to focus on the pivotal argument and reduce your perceived plausibilities arguments; that is not the point at hand, entertaining though they may be to discourse on.

The point at hand is that the Strong Atheist position states that god does not exist, thus the burden of proof is on the Strong Atheist to prove god does not exist.

You said as much yourself when you claimed the person positing carries the burden of proof.

I have argued that Asimov is a Strong Atheist and you have agreed. You have claimed that a Strong Atheist is not an article of faith. Your claim is false unless you show me your proof that god does not exist. Only then can you make the claim that the Strong Atheist position does not rely on faith.

There is no argumentative advantage for you in complaining that the Strong Atheist position requires proof of a negative in the absolute sense.
They are the plain facts by definition!

Perhaps it will become clearer once you understand that the Strong Atheist position is an absolute position not allowing for even the smallest of possibilities for the existence of some sort of god, this gives the Strong Atheist position no wiggle room at all and thus arguments based on relative plausibilities cannot be used.

If you have an understanding of science you will see that the Strong Atheist position is not falsifiable. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. In fact some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl , have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Most amusingly, I can successfully argue that Asimov's AC would be disallowed under the umbrella of the Strong Atheist position.

Why?

Because it has the creation powers of a god, exists beyond the physical world - beyond entropy, and thus would by definition be a god!

The irony being of course is that AC came about as a result of a five dollar bet over highballs and became omnipotent through chance alone - or so it might appear.

Unless one wants to delve into infinite regressions of ever larger spheres of omnipotent influence - the path to absurdity or at least to humor.

0 Replies

Chumly, I admire your energy. But I do not have enough time or energy at present to deal with this extensive offering. I'll read it in a year or so after I finish Proust.

0 Replies

I'll read it after I finish reading all the latin american authors recommended at some point by Fbaezer....

0 Replies

Oh, that sounds interesting, Osso. I think I would like his list. Could you later share some of those titles with me? After I finish Proust and then Chumly's posts....

0 Replies

OK you bunch of pussies. I'm gonna kick some butt unless you read one the true masters, his work is the ****.

Quote:

Stanislaw Lem (September 12, 1921 - March 27, 2006) was a Polish science fiction, philosophical and satirical writer. His books have been translated into 41 languages and have sold over 27 million copies.[1] In 1976, Theodore Sturgeon claimed that Lem was the most widely read science-fiction writer in the world.[2]

His works explore philosophical themes; speculation on technology, the nature of intelligence, the impossibility of mutual communication and understanding, despair about human limitations and humankind's place in the universe. They are sometimes presented as fiction, but others are in the form of essays or philosophical books. Translations of his works are difficult; Michael Kandel's translations into English have generally been praised as capturing the spirit of the original.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_Lem

0 Replies

Virtually every book ever written has philospical underpinnings.

If you read, you cannot but confront philosophy in some form.

0 Replies

Yes, even an anti-philosophical perspective is a philosophical perspective, as bad as it may be.

0 Replies

Blank Books

0 Replies

Chumly, I consider myself a strong atheist. I no more entertain an omnipotent creator than I do the tooth fairy. And it was a position that I reached out of rationality, not faith. Clearly, you disagree.

So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree as it would otherwise take the thread off couse.

I liked your most recent story by the way. Please do continue to contribute. I only wish I had access to whichever repository of short fiction that you're getting these from.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Virtually every book ever written has philospical underpinnings.

Hence why I was asking for the BEST ones. Laughing

0 Replies

Then you were asking for a list of the BEST fiction?

You might try A Voyage to Arcturus by David Lindsay, although you may have trouble finding a copy.

The Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

I like Ayn Rand, apparently you do not.

Anything by Tolstoy or Kafka.

0 Replies

Most of my favorites are not new. Opus 21, by Philip Wylie, is one of my tops. We spend a weekend with the semifictional Wylie, who is an ex alcoholic, still a smoker, and awaiting a biopsy on a growth found in his throat. He has to finish editing down a magazine article or story by Monday. He encounters a scientist nephew, who fell in love with a loose girl, lost her, and now contemplates suicide; an old friend madam at a whorehouse; a minister, whom Wylie unsettles rather easily; a boorish man in a restaurant, and several other characters, all of whom conveniently fit into his philisophical, Jungian, atheistic musings. For about twenty years, I latched onto the author as an unwitting father figure for myself. I look back with great fondness, and occasionally reread some of his stuff.

0 Replies

I believe this is my problem with Ayn Rand and a lot of other excessively long books.

If your point was to get a philosophy across, and it's one that can be summed up in a paragraph, you don't need to spend the entire freaking book beating me over the head with it. I'm smart enough that I got the point after the first freaking chapter. If you're going to go on for 40 more, either include some addition philopsophy or make the underlying story atleast mildly interesting and readable.

0 Replies

I believe this is my problem with Ayn Rand and a lot of other excessively long books.

If your point was to get a philosophy across, and it's one that can be summed up in a paragraph, you don't need to spend the entire freaking book beating me over the head with it. I'm smart enough that I got the point after the first freaking chapter. If you're going to go on for 40 more, either include some addition philopsophy or make the underlying story atleast mildly interesting and readable.

This is also why I LOVE SHORT STORIES with a philopophical message/theme.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

This is also why I LOVE SHORT STORIES with a philosophical message/theme.

I agree 100%, short stories and novellas "don't get no respect" as Rodney would say! I feel they may be the perfect platform for conveying ideas without bogging down.

PS: I do not consider the strong atheist position to be an article of faith from a relative-rational-plausibly-perspective, but as discussed the wiki definition precludes a relative-rational-plausibly-perspective due the strong atheist's absolutism.

Even still, I would count myself as sharing Asimov's atheists views.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

I believe this is my problem with Ayn Rand and a lot of other excessively long books.

If your point was to get a philosophy across, and it's one that can be summed up in a paragraph, you don't need to spend the entire freaking book beating me over the head with it. I'm smart enough that I got the point after the first freaking chapter. If you're going to go on for 40 more, either include some addition philopsophy or make the underlying story atleast mildly interesting and readable.

A matter of opinion

0 Replies

What're the best fiction books w philsophical underpinnings?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know